Model comparison
Laguna M.1 vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
PoolsideSummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Laguna M.1 scores higher in 1 category and Mercury 2.5 in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- Laguna M.1 accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 260K.
- Laguna M.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Laguna M.1 | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Poolside | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 32.5 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-28 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 260K |
| Max output | 33K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Laguna M.1: 36.6 (#204), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1349 | — |
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Laguna M.1: 23.1 (#184), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 15.6% | — |
Math Mercury 2.5 leads
Laguna M.1: 21.1 (#283), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 0% | 3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Laguna M.1 better than Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Laguna M.1 or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Laguna M.1 does, with 262K tokens against 260K.
How many benchmarks do Laguna M.1 and Mercury 2.5 share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Laguna M.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.