# Amazon Nova Pro vs Mercury 2.5

> Amazon Nova Pro has enough public results to be ranked (#278); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/amazon-nova-pro-vs-mercury-2-5
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in math, where Amazon Nova Pro leads 26.4 to 22.4.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.80 / $3.20 for Amazon Nova Pro.
- Amazon Nova Pro accepts more context: 300K tokens versus 260K.

## Snapshot

| | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Amazon | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 30.2 |
| Rank | 278 | — |
| Context | 300K | 260K |
| Input $/M | $0.80 | $0.04 |
| Output $/M | $3.20 | $0.15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Amazon Nova Pro: 34.6 (#224)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 38.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1270 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Amazon Nova Pro: 16.6 (#139)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 25% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 1.7% | — |

## Reasoning

- Amazon Nova Pro: 19.2 (#240)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 32.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1246 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 48.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 123.75 | — |
| LiveBench | 43.5% | — |

## Math

- Amazon Nova Pro: 26.4 (#240)
- Mercury 2.5: 22.4

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| Omni-MATH | 24.2% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 38% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1252 | — |

## Knowledge

- Amazon Nova Pro: 27.1 (#246)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 4.4% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 67.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 30.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.1% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1211 | — |
| MMLU | 82% | — |

## Multimodal

- Amazon Nova Pro: 24.5 (#121)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 980 | — |

## Multilingual

- Amazon Nova Pro: 39.9 (#218)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1234 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1244 | — |
| LMArena French | 1270 | — |
| LMArena German | 1243 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1200 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1203 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1240 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1182 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Amazon Nova Pro: 65.1 (#221)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 67.1% | — |
| IFEval | 81.5% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1235 | — |

## Long Context

- Amazon Nova Pro: 38.1 (#199)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1255 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Amazon Nova Pro: 44.1 (#221)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1259 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1212 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 60.5% | — |
| WildBench | 77.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1245 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 37% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Amazon Nova Pro better than Mercury 2.5?

Amazon Nova Pro has enough public results to be ranked (#278); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Which is cheaper, Amazon Nova Pro or Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Amazon Nova Pro lists at $0.80 and $3.20.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Amazon Nova Pro does, with 300K tokens against 260K.

### How many benchmarks do Amazon Nova Pro and Mercury 2.5 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Amazon Nova Pro has 38 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 2.