Model comparison

GLM-4.5-Air vs Mercury 2.5

GLM-4.5-Air is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 6.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5-Air's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

GLM-4.5-Air Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.9

Rank #177 Confirmed

Mercury 2.5 Inception

33.5

Rank #242 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where GLM-4.5-Air leads 36.2 to 23.3.
  • Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.20 / $1.10 for GLM-4.5-Air.
  • Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 131K.
  • GLM-4.5-Air has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GLM-4.5-Air and Mercury 2.5 specifications
GLM-4.5-AirMercury 2.5
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Inception
Noometry Index38.933.5
Released2025-07-202026-09-08
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K260K
Max output98K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.20$0.04
Output $ / M tokens$1.10$0.15
Results tracked274

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

Category by category

Coding Mercury 2.5 leads

GLM-4.5-Air: 33.3 (#259), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirMercury 2.5
SciCode—38.5%
GSO2.9%—
LMArena Coding1397—
ALE-Bench—301.65

Reasoning GLM-4.5-Air leads

GLM-4.5-Air: 24.1 (#166), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirMercury 2.5
Kagi LLM Benchmark43%—
CritPt—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1379—
ForecastBench59.2—

Math GLM-4.5-Air leads

GLM-4.5-Air: 36.2 (#170), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirMercury 2.5
ProofBench—3%
Omni-MATH39.1%—
LMArena Math1396—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-4.5-Air: 35.0 (#191), Mercury 2.5: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirMercury 2.5
Humanity's Last Exam8.1%—
MMLU-Pro76.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
GPQA (HELM)59.4%—
LMArena Expert1370—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-4.5-Air: 49.1 (#135), Mercury 2.5: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirMercury 2.5
LMArena Non-English1366—
LMArena Chinese1426—
LMArena French1399—
LMArena German1377—
LMArena Japanese1348—
LMArena Korean1308—
LMArena Russian1373—
LMArena Spanish1386—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-4.5-Air: 69.6 (#171), Mercury 2.5: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirMercury 2.5
IFEval81.2%—
LMArena Instruction Following1354—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-4.5-Air: 41.6 (#135), Mercury 2.5: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirMercury 2.5
LMArena Longer Query1366—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-4.5-Air: 55.9 (#139), Mercury 2.5: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGLM-4.5-AirMercury 2.5
LMArena Text1384—
LMArena Creative Writing1343—
WildBench78.9%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1371—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-4.5-Air better than Mercury 2.5?

GLM-4.5-Air is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 6.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5-Air's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5-Air 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; GLM-4.5-Air lists at $0.20 and $1.10.

Is GLM-4.5-Air or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?

Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 33.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5-Air and Mercury 2.5 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5-Air has 27 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.

Related comparisons

Go deeper