Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Mercury 2
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Mercury 2 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 39.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and Mercury 2 in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 47.5 to 40.5.
- Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 39.1 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-02-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 128K |
| Max output | 66K | 50K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.75 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 41.9% | 43.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1391 |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 785.58 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1171 |
| SciCode | — | 38.7% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), Mercury 2: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1362 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), Mercury 2: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 12.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1358 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), Mercury 2: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1331 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1417 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | — |
| LMArena German | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1329 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1330 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1355 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1289 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1358 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Mercury 2?
Gemini 2.5 Flash and Mercury 2 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 39.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Mercury 2?
Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Mercury 2 better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Mercury 2 share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2 has 17.