Model comparison
Llama 3.2 90B vs Mercury 2
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Mercury 2 leads 35.6 to 21.7.
- Llama 3.2 90B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 27.1 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2026-02-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 50K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.75 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1170 |
| SciCode | — | 38.7% |
| WeirdML | — | 43.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1391 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 785.58 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 29.7 (#73), Mercury 2: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 27.3% | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2 leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 20.9 (#207), Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.8% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1362 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.5 | — |
Math Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 10.4 (#302), Mercury 2: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.4% | — |
Knowledge Mercury 2 leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#269), Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 41% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.3% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1358 |
| MMLU | 80.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 24.9 (#119), Mercury 2: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1000 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1331 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1303 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1328 |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1329 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1355 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1289 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1358 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 90B better than Mercury 2?
Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and Mercury 2 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2 has 17.