Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Mercury 2.5 leads 23.3 to 10.7.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
- Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 8K | 260K |
| Max output | 2K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Mercury 2.5 leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | — |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B 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; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.