Model comparison
Gemma 3n E4b IT vs Mercury 2.5
Gemma 3n E4b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 3n E4b IT leads 35.1 to 23.3.
- Gemma 3n E4b IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 3n E4b IT | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | |
| Noometry Index | 37.3 | 33.5 |
| Released | — | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 260K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 37.0 (#198), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1268 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 19.9 (#247), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 31.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1284 | — |
Math Gemma 3n E4b IT leads
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 35.1 (#188), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1251 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 34.2 (#198), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1246 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 43.4 (#183), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1285 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1309 | — |
| LMArena French | 1330 | — |
| LMArena German | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1272 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1259 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1288 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1305 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 66.1 (#210), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1255 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 38.7 (#191), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1276 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 3n E4b IT: 50.1 (#186), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3n E4b IT | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1306 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1287 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1276 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 3n E4b IT better than Mercury 2.5?
Gemma 3n E4b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 3n E4b IT or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 37.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 3n E4b IT and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3n E4b IT has 18 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.