Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Mercury 2.5

Gemma 3 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#277); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 27B Google

30.5

Rank #277 Confirmed

Mercury 2.5 Inception

30.2

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.08 / $0.16 for Gemma 3 27B.
  • Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 131K.
  • Gemma 3 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
ProviderGoogleInception
Noometry Index30.530.2
Released2025-03-112026-09-08
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K260K
Max output8K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.08$0.04
Output $ / M tokens$0.16$0.15
Results tracked432

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 22.1 (#329), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
Aider Polyglot4.9%—
SciCode21.2%—
LiveBench Coding39.9%—
LMArena Coding1322—
ALE-Bench—301.65

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 24.9 (#105), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard29.5%—

Reasoning Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 16.3 (#297), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.4%—
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles0%—
LiveBench Reasoning43.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1340—
DTBench52.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis51.5%—
LMCA12.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.04—
LiveBench50%—

Math Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 24.4 (#261), Mercury 2.5: 22.4

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202522.5%—
ProofBench—3%
LiveBench Math55.4%—
LMArena Math1312—
MATH Level 574%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 25.4 (#256), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
GPQA Diamond47.7%—
Confabulations40.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7.4%—
LMArena Expert1303—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 32.0 (#94), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
LMArena Vision1165—
GeoBench52%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 47.0 (#150), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
LMArena Non-English1334—
LMArena Chinese1347—
LMArena French1368—
LMArena German1362—
LMArena Japanese1287—
LMArena Korean1308—
LMArena Russian1349—
LMArena Spanish1348—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 70.8 (#155), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
LiveBench Instruction Following74.9%—
LMArena Instruction Following1321—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#288), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%—
LMArena Longer Query1333—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 52.7 (#161), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BMercury 2.5
LMArena Text1358—
LMArena Creative Writing1346—
Short-Story Creative Writing79.9%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1266—
LMArena Multi-Turn1344—
LiveBench Language34.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3 27B better than Mercury 2.5?

Gemma 3 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#277); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 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 3 27B lists at $0.08 and $0.16.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 27B and Mercury 2.5 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 2.

Related comparisons

Go deeper