Model comparison
Llama 3-70B vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Mercury 2.5 leads 23.3 to 12.8.
- Llama 3-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 28.8 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2024-04-18 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 260K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 31 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Llama 3-70B: 35.8 (#218), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 43.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1206 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
| HumanEval+ | 72% | — |
| MBPP+ | 69% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3-70B: 21.1 (#139), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 5% | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Llama 3-70B: 18.0 (#288), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 35.1% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1195 | — |
| DTBench | 54.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.93 | — |
| ForecastBench | 57.1 | — |
| WinoGrande | 83.5% | — |
Math Mercury 2.5 leads
Llama 3-70B: 12.8 (#305), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 4.3% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1218 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 22.6% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3-70B: 20.8 (#277), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 40.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1149 | — |
| MMLU | 79.3% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3-70B: 33.6 (#251), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1142 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1114 | — |
| LMArena French | 1232 | — |
| LMArena German | 1169 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1017 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1017 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1159 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1241 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3-70B: 62.5 (#238), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1194 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3-70B: 35.6 (#240), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1174 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3-70B: 42.8 (#231), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3-70B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1221 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1210 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3-70B better than Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3-70B or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3-70B and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3-70B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.