Model comparison

Gemma 3 4B vs Mercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 28.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 4B

Google

28.1

Rank #326 Confirmed

Mercury 2.5 Inception

33.5

Rank #242 Reported

Summary

The widest gap is in reasoning, where Mercury 2.5 leads 22.4 to 13.2.
Gemma 3 4B is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.08 per million input/output tokens, against $0.04 / $0.15 for Mercury 2.5.
Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 131K.
Gemma 3 4B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemma 3 4B and Mercury 2.5 specifications
	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
Provider	Google	Inception
Noometry Index	28.1	33.5
Released	2025-03-12	2026-09-08
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	131K	260K
Max output	4K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.04	$0.04
Output $ / M tokens	$0.08	$0.15
Results tracked	22	4

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

Category by category

Coding Mercury 2.5 leads

Gemma 3 4B: 35.9 (#215), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
SciCode	—	38.5%
LMArena Coding	1230	—
ALE-Bench	—	301.65

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 3 4B: 20.9 (#142), Mercury 2.5: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	19.6%	—

Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads

Gemma 3 4B: 13.2 (#335), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
Kagi LLM Benchmark	25.2%	—
CritPt	—	0%
Chess Puzzles	0%	—
LMArena Hard Prompts	1253	—
DTBench	50.9%	—
LMCA	2.8%	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	116.02	—

Math Mercury 2.5 leads

Gemma 3 4B: 16.8 (#292), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	7.5%	—
ProofBench	—	3%
LMArena Math	1239	—

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemma 3 4B: 11.8 (#299), Mercury 2.5: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
GPQA Diamond	23.2%	—
Vectara Hallucination Rate	6.4%	—
LMArena Expert	1223	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 3 4B: 42.5 (#194), Mercury 2.5: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
LMArena Non-English	1273	—
LMArena German	1281	—
LMArena Russian	1294	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemma 3 4B: 65.2 (#225), Mercury 2.5: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
LMArena Instruction Following	1239	—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemma 3 4B: 38.7 (#194), Mercury 2.5: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
LMArena Longer Query	1273	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemma 3 4B: 42.0 (#239), Mercury 2.5: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Gemma 3 4B	Mercury 2.5
LMArena Text	1291	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1271	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1068	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1255	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3 4B better than Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 28.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 4B or Mercury 2.5?

Gemma 3 4B is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.08 per million output tokens; Mercury 2.5 lists at $0.04 and $0.15.

Is Gemma 3 4B or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?

Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 4B and Mercury 2.5 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 4B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.