Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Mercury 2.5 leads 39.5 to 29.4.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 260K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.