Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 5 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Mercury 2 leads 46.6 to 38.1.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 50K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1291 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1171 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1272 |
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Too close to call
Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | 1295 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
Multilingual Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1417 | 1242 |
| LMArena Russian | 1304 | 1193 |
| LMArena French | — | 1260 |
| LMArena German | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1289 |
Instruction Following Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1329 | 1247 |
Long Context Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1330 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury 2 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.