Model comparison
Llama 3.1-405B vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Mercury 2.5 leads 39.5 to 33.1.
- Llama 3.1-405B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 30.7 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 260K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 42 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| WeirdML | 21.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 7.4% | — |
| Cybench | 7.5% | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 23% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 45% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1269 | — |
| 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 Mercury 2.5 leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 9.7% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| Omni-MATH | 24.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1281 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 49.8% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1248 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | — |
| LMArena French | 1279 | — |
| LMArena German | 1252 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1208 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1184 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1265 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1260 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 81.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1259 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1284 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1262 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 870 | — |
| WildBench | 78.3% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1297 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.1-405B better than Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.1-405B or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-405B and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-405B has 42 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.