Model comparison

Command R vs Mercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

Mercury 2.5 Inception

33.5

Rank #242 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Mercury 2.5 leads 39.5 to 29.3.
  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.60 for Command R.
  • Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 128K.
  • Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command R and Mercury 2.5 specifications
Command RMercury 2.5
ProviderCohereInception
Noometry Index31.433.5
Released2024-08-302026-09-08
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K260K
Max output4K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.04
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$0.15
Results tracked294

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Mercury 2.5 leads

Command R: 29.3 (#306), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RMercury 2.5
SciCode—38.5%
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%—
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
LMArena Coding1169—
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%—
ALE-Bench—301.65

Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RMercury 2.5
CritPt—0%
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1164—
DTBench46.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
LMCA9.2%—
LiveBench27.5%—

Math Command R leads

Command R: 28.0 (#246), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RMercury 2.5
ProofBench—3%
LiveBench Math19.4%—
LMArena Math1155—

Knowledge Not comparable

Command R: 31.0 (#221), Mercury 2.5: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RMercury 2.5
LMArena Expert1138—
MMLU65.2%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R: 35.7 (#245), Mercury 2.5: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RMercury 2.5
LMArena Non-English1174—
LMArena Chinese1182—
LMArena French1162—
LMArena German1176—
LMArena Japanese1143—
LMArena Korean1163—
LMArena Russian1174—
LMArena Spanish1151—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command R: 58.1 (#261), Mercury 2.5: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RMercury 2.5
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—
LMArena Instruction Following1167—

Long Context Not comparable

Command R: 36.3 (#231), Mercury 2.5: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RMercury 2.5
LMArena Longer Query1198—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command R: 38.2 (#254), Mercury 2.5: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RMercury 2.5
LMArena Text1187—
LMArena Creative Writing1170—
LMArena Multi-Turn1163—
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R 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; Command R lists at $0.15 and $0.60.

Is Command R or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?

Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R and Mercury 2.5 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.

Related comparisons

Go deeper