Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 4 31B IT vs Mercury 2.5

Gemma 4 31B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemma 4 31B IT's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 4 31B IT Google

43.5

Rank #90 Confirmed

Mercury 2.5 Inception

33.5

Rank #242 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 4 31B IT scores higher in 3 categories and Mercury 2.5 in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 4 31B IT leads 43.2 to 23.3.
  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.09 / $0.34 for Gemma 4 31B IT.
  • Gemma 4 31B IT accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 260K.
  • Gemma 4 31B IT has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
ProviderGoogleInception
Noometry Index43.533.5
Released2026-04-022026-09-08
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K260K
Max output33K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.09$0.04
Output $ / M tokens$0.34$0.15
Results tracked354

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

Category by category

Coding Gemma 4 31B IT leads

Gemma 4 31B IT: 42.3 (#108), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)

BenchmarkGemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
SciCode43.4%38.5%
ALE-Bench925.5301.65
LMArena WebDev1366—
WeirdML52.3%—
LMArena Coding1459—

Reasoning Gemma 4 31B IT leads

Gemma 4 31B IT: 27.2 (#122), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)

BenchmarkGemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
CritPt1.4%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark63.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)70.6%—
Chess Puzzles5%—
Thematic Generalization53%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1448—
DTBench82.7%—
LMCA39.3%—
Surface Evolver Bench30.6%—
Epoch Capabilities Index142.74—

Math Gemma 4 31B IT leads

Gemma 4 31B IT: 43.2 (#81), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)

BenchmarkGemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202573.3%—
ProofBench—3%
LMArena Math1465—

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemma 4 31B IT: 37.9 (#151), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
GPQA Diamond75.8%—
SimpleQA Verified10.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7.4%—
LMArena Expert1465—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 4 31B IT: 41.6 (#34), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
LMArena Vision1277—
LMArena Document1425—

Multilingual Not comparable

Gemma 4 31B IT: 53.8 (#57), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
LMArena Non-English1431—
LMArena Chinese1476—
LMArena French1435—
LMArena Russian1460—
LMArena Spanish1444—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Gemma 4 31B IT: 75.5 (#61), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
LMArena Instruction Following1433—

Long Context Not comparable

Gemma 4 31B IT: 44.2 (#71), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
LMArena Longer Query1446—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Gemma 4 31B IT: 60.5 (#96), Mercury 2.5: —

BenchmarkGemma 4 31B ITMercury 2.5
LMArena Text1443—
LMArena Creative Writing1415—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1368—
EQ-Bench 41120—
LMArena Multi-Turn1452—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 4 31B IT better than Mercury 2.5?

Gemma 4 31B IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemma 4 31B IT's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 31B IT 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 4 31B IT lists at $0.09 and $0.34.

Is Gemma 4 31B IT or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?

Gemma 4 31B IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.3 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemma 4 31B IT does, with 262K tokens against 260K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 4 31B IT and Mercury 2.5 share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 4 31B IT has 35 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.

Related comparisons

Go deeper