Model comparison
Claude 3 Opus vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Mercury 2.5 leads 23.3 to 14.8.
Side by side
| Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 29.5 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2024-02-29 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 260K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 32.9 (#267), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| WeirdML | 19.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.5% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 38.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1264 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
| HumanEval+ | 77.4% | — |
| MBPP+ | 73.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 3 Opus: 24.6 (#116), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 29.5% | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 14.6 (#324), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 23.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 0.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 40.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1245 | — |
| DTBench | 61.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 57.9% | — |
| LMCA | 17% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.91 | — |
| ForecastBench | 58.4 | — |
| LiveBench | 49.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 88.5% | — |
Math Mercury 2.5 leads
Claude 3 Opus: 14.8 (#299), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 4.7% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LiveBench Math | 43.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1273 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 37.5% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude 3 Opus: 24.5 (#267), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 47.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 12.6% | — |
| Confabulations | 22.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1223 | — |
| MMLU | 84.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude 3 Opus: 27.1 (#116), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1023 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 3 Opus: 41.4 (#207), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1258 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1248 | — |
| LMArena French | 1275 | — |
| LMArena German | 1258 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1204 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1187 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1280 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1246 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 3 Opus: 64.1 (#228), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 63.9% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1248 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 3 Opus: 38.2 (#202), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1259 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 3 Opus: 47.2 (#213), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1262 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1275 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 50.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 3 Opus better than Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 3 Opus or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 3 Opus and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Opus has 46 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.