Model comparison
Mercury 2.5 vs Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
Mercury 2.5 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.5 vs 32.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Mercury 2.5 leads 39.5 to 35.2.
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 33.5 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2026-09-08 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 260K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Results tracked | 4 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1210 |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |
Reasoning Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads
Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1208 |
Math Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads
Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1208 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | — | 41.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 28.7% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1160 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1192 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1187 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 78% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1186 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1194 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mercury 2.5: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1218 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1199 |
| WildBench | — | 73.4% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1221 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct?
Mercury 2.5 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.5 vs 32.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Mercury 2.5 or Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 35.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2.5 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 4 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16.