Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs phi-3-medium 14B
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MicrosoftSummary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Mercury 2 leads 36.2 to 9.1.
- phi-3-medium 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | phi-3-medium 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | 2024-04-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 50K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding phi-3-medium 14B leads
Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255), phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1171 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.7% |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 121.23 |
| HellaSwag | — | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | — | 81.5% |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |
Knowledge Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172), phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 27.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 91.6% |
| MMLU | — | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 87.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1304 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1329 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1330 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than phi-3-medium 14B?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury 2 or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?
phi-3-medium 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.8 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and phi-3-medium 14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.