# Gemma 2 9B vs Mercury 2.5

> Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-9b-vs-mercury-2-5
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in math, where Mercury 2.5 leads 23.3 to 9.9.
- Gemma 2 9B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 33.5 |
| Rank | 341 | 242 |
| Context | — | 260K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.04 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.15 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304)
- Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309)
- Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.83 | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318)
- Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1183 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | — |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | — |
| LMArena French | 1190 | — |
| LMArena German | 1186 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 9B better than Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2 9B or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?

Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Mercury 2.5 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.