Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Mercury
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Mercury in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.7 to 38.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 70.3% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 21.6% for Mercury.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | |
| Noometry Index | 44.9 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 78 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.8 (#86), Mercury: 38.1 (#164)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1323 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.1 (#81), Mercury: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#85), Mercury: 16.8 (#288)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | 21.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1284 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 31.9 (#191), Mercury: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1450 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.8 (#41), Mercury: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 44.5 (#16), Mercury: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.5 (#30), Mercury: 41.7 (#201)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | 1259 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1473 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1462 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1460 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.2 (#71), Mercury: 65.3 (#220)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1238 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.7 (#5), Mercury: 38.3 (#193)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1264 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.9 (#60), Mercury: 46.2 (#216)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1186 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1283 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Mercury?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Mercury better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.8 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Mercury has 9.