Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs o1
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 389× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where o1 leads 36.1 to 23.3.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | o1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 33.5 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2024-09-12 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 260K | 200K |
| Max output | 66K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | $15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $60 |
| Results tracked | 4 | 52 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), o1: 46.1 (#70)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| SciCode | 38.5% | — |
| WeirdML | — | 47.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1367 |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, o1: 24.6 (#117)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
Reasoning o1 leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), o1: 27.9 (#111)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | — | 41.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 30.7% |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 15% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1371 |
| DTBench | — | 74.7% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LMCA | — | 22.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 141.91 |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |
Math o1 leads
Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), o1: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 73.3% |
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1388 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, o1: 41.5 (#110)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 76.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 41.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1361 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, o1: 34.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, o1: 48.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1394 |
| LMArena French | — | 1344 |
| LMArena German | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1345 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, o1: 74.8 (#86)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1367 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, o1: 50.3 (#9)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1378 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, o1: 55.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1348 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1369 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than o1?
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 389× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or o1?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is Mercury 2.5 or o1 better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and o1 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.