Model comparison
DeepSeek LLM 67B vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Mercury 2.5 leads 23.3 to 8.7.
- DeepSeek LLM 67B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek LLM 67B | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2023-11-29 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 260K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1096 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1070 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 110.5 | — |
Math Mercury 2.5 leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.8% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1108 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 6.4% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 24.6% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1073 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1079 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1092 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1105 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1067 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1082 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek LLM 67B and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.