Model comparison
Mercury 2 vs Olmo 3 32b Think
Mercury 2 and Olmo 3 32b Think score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 38.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 5 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Mercury 2 leads 46.8 to 41.4.
- Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury 2 | Olmo 3 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 38.1 |
| Released | 2026-02-20 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 50K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.75 | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.0 (#169)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1391 | 1318 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1170 | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.58 | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170), Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1362 | 1302 |
| CritPt | 0.8% | — |
Math Not comparable
Mercury 2: —, Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1315 |
Knowledge Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170), Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1358 | 1272 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.3% | — |
Multilingual Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1331 | 1255 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1416 | 1300 |
| LMArena Russian | 1303 | 1255 |
| LMArena French | — | 1291 |
| LMArena German | — | 1290 |
Instruction Following Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1328 | 1275 |
Long Context Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1329 | 1296 |
Writing & Preference Mercury 2 leads
Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188)
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1355 | 1300 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1289 | 1256 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1358 | 1289 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury 2 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?
Mercury 2 and Olmo 3 32b Think score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 38.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Mercury 2 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.