Model comparison
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.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- 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.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 260K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 35 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
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 Mercury 2.5 leads
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 Mercury 2.5 leads
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 Not comparable
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 Not comparable
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 Not comparable
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 Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
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% | — |
Frequently asked questions
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.