Model comparison
Llama 3.1-405B vs Mercury
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1-405B scores higher in 1 category and Mercury in 5 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mercury leads 46.2 to 38.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 45% for Llama 3.1-405B and 21.6% for Mercury.
- Llama 3.1-405B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 30.7 | 37.6 |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 42 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262), Mercury: 38.7 (#170)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | 1322 |
| WeirdML | 21.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140), Mercury: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 7.4% | — |
| Cybench | 7.5% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300), Mercury: 17.5 (#293)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 45% | 21.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1269 | 1285 |
| SimpleBench | 23% | — |
| DTBench | 61.4% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 82.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 128.75 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
| HellaSwag | 89.2% | — |
| PIQA | 85.9% | — |
| WinoGrande | 89.2% | — |
Math Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290), Mercury: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 9.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 24.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1281 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 49.8% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227), Mercury: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 50.9% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 72.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.6% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 52.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1243 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 95.3% | — |
| MMLU | 84.5% | — |
| TriviaQA | 82.7% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214), Mercury: 41.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1248 | 1260 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | — |
| LMArena French | 1279 | — |
| LMArena German | 1252 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1208 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1184 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1265 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1260 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214), Mercury: 65.2 (#224)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1259 | 1239 |
| IFEval | 81.1% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197), Mercury: 38.4 (#198)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1266 |
Writing & Preference Mercury leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251), Mercury: 46.2 (#221)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1284 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1262 | 1191 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1297 | 1282 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 870 | — |
| WildBench | 78.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.1-405B better than Mercury?
Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.1-405B or Mercury better for coding?
Mercury scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-405B and Mercury share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-405B has 42 scored results on Noometry and Mercury has 9.