Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think has enough public results to be ranked (#191); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 33.6 to 22.4.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 30.2 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 260K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Results tracked | 2 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | — | 1292 |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1272 |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1294 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1241 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1246 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think has enough public results to be ranked (#191); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 2 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.