Model comparison
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Mercury 2.5
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Mercury 2.5 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.2 vs 33.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 33.1 to 23.3.
- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 33.2 | 33.5 |
| Released | — | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 260K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | — |
Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1159 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1139 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Mercury 2.5?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Mercury 2.5 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.2 vs 33.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.