Model comparison
Llama 13b vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Mercury 2.5 leads 39.5 to 21.4.
- Llama 13b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 13b | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 24.4 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2023-02-24 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 260K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 683 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 728 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 37.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 100.58 | — |
| HellaSwag | 79.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 75.2% | — |
| PIQA | 80.1% | — |
| WinoGrande | 73% | — |
Math Llama 13b leads
Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 838 | — |
| GSM8K | 20.6% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 52.7% | — |
| BoolQ | 78.7% | — |
| MMLU | 47.7% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 56.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 77.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.3% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 819 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 781 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 834 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 794 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 753 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 13b better than Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 13b or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 13b and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 13b has 21 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.