Model comparison

Mercury 2.5 vs Mixtral 8x7B

Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2.5 Inception

33.5

Rank #242 Reported

Mixtral 8x7B Mistral AI

27.1

Rank #334 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Mercury 2.5 leads 39.5 to 32.8.
  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $0.70 for Mixtral 8x7B.
  • Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 32K.
  • Mixtral 8x7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mercury 2.5 and Mixtral 8x7B specifications
Mercury 2.5Mixtral 8x7B
ProviderInceptionMistral AI
Noometry Index33.527.1
Released2026-09-082023-12-11
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window260K32K
Max output66K32K
Input $ / M tokens$0.04$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$0.70
Results tracked438

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Mercury 2.5 leads

Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), Mixtral 8x7B: 32.8 (#269)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mixtral 8x7B
SciCode38.5%—
LMArena Coding—1126
ALE-Bench301.65—
HumanEval+—39.6%
MBPP+—49.7%

Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads

Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), Mixtral 8x7B: 18.2 (#285)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mixtral 8x7B
CritPt0%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1115
DTBench—49.6%
Adversarial NLI—55.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—118.47
ForecastBench—56.3
HellaSwag—86.7%
PIQA—83.6%
WinoGrande—77.2%

Math Mercury 2.5 leads

Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), Mixtral 8x7B: 18.8 (#289)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mixtral 8x7B
ProofBench3%—
Omni-MATH—10.5%
LMArena Math—1147
MATH Level 5—10%
GSM8K—74.4%

Knowledge Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Mixtral 8x7B: 11.0 (#301)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mixtral 8x7B
GPQA Diamond—30.6%
MMLU-Pro—33.5%
GPQA (HELM)—29.6%
LMArena Expert—1088
ARC (AI2) Challenge—87.3%
MMLU—70.6%
OpenBookQA—85.8%
TriviaQA—82.2%

Multilingual Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Mixtral 8x7B: 29.6 (#266)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mixtral 8x7B
LMArena Non-English—1077
LMArena Chinese—1055
LMArena French—1166
LMArena German—1114
LMArena Japanese—931
LMArena Korean—968
LMArena Russian—1090
LMArena Spanish—1111

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Mixtral 8x7B: 51.0 (#297)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mixtral 8x7B
IFEval—57.5%
LMArena Instruction Following—1109

Long Context Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Mixtral 8x7B: 33.4 (#260)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mixtral 8x7B
LMArena Longer Query—1103

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mercury 2.5: —, Mixtral 8x7B: 34.2 (#270)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mixtral 8x7B
LMArena Text—1132
LMArena Creative Writing—1109
WildBench—67.3%
LMArena Multi-Turn—1115

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Mixtral 8x7B?

Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Mixtral 8x7B?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Mixtral 8x7B lists at $0.70 and $0.70.

Is Mercury 2.5 or Mixtral 8x7B better for coding?

Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 32.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 32K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Mixtral 8x7B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and Mixtral 8x7B has 38.

Related comparisons

Go deeper