Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Mercury 2.5
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 1 category and Mercury 2.5 in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 39.9 to 23.3.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 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 260K.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2025-04-17 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 260K |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | 301.65 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | — |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
Math Gemini 2.5 Flash leads
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | — |
| LMArena French | 1433 | — |
| LMArena German | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Mercury 2.5?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 260K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Mercury 2.5 share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.