Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro4
Solar Pro4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 7.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Solar Pro4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
UpstageSummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Solar Pro4 leads 38.8 to 23.3.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for Solar Pro4.
- Solar Pro4 accepts more context: 524K tokens versus 260K.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | Solar Pro4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Upstage |
| Noometry Index | 33.5 | 42.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | 2026-08-06 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 260K | 524K |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 4 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), Solar Pro4: 40.1 (#149)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1371 |
| SciCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1437 |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Reasoning Solar Pro4 leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), Solar Pro4: 28.5 (#104)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1399 |
Math Solar Pro4 leads
Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), Solar Pro4: 38.8 (#128)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1416 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Solar Pro4: 39.8 (#129)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1427 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Solar Pro4: 48.7 (#139)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1361 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1415 |
| LMArena French | — | 1397 |
| LMArena German | — | 1364 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1309 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1360 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1401 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Solar Pro4: 72.7 (#132)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1377 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Solar Pro4: 42.1 (#130)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1381 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Solar Pro4: 56.5 (#138)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1386 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1316 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1385 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Solar Pro4?
Solar Pro4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 7.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Solar Pro4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Solar Pro4?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Solar Pro4 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.
Is Mercury 2.5 or Solar Pro4 better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (39.5 vs 40.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Solar Pro4 does, with 524K tokens against 260K.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Solar Pro4 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and Solar Pro4 has 18.