# Llama 3.2 3B vs Mercury 2.5

> Llama 3.2 3B has enough public results to be ranked (#318); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-3b-vs-mercury-2-5
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in math, where Llama 3.2 3B leads 29.9 to 22.4.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.05 / $0.33 for Llama 3.2 3B.
- Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 131K.
- Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 28.4 | 30.2 |
| Rank | 318 | — |
| Context | 131K | 260K |
| Input $/M | $0.05 | $0.04 |
| Output $/M | $0.33 | $0.15 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 23.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1098 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 28.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 21.9% | — |
| BALROG | 10.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1095 | — |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213)
- Mercury 2.5: 22.4

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1126 | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1090 | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1019 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1017 | — |
| LMArena German | 1056 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 949 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1089 | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1101 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302)
- Mercury 2.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1110 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1094 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 595 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1105 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Mercury 2.5?

Llama 3.2 3B has enough public results to be ranked (#318); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B 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; Llama 3.2 3B lists at $0.05 and $0.33.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Mercury 2.5 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 2.