Model comparison

Mercury 2 vs Step 3.5 Flash

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Mercury 2 Inception

38.8

Rank #167 Confirmed

Step 3.5 Flash StepFun

41.7

Rank #116 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury 2 scores higher in 1 category and Step 3.5 Flash in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Step 3.5 Flash leads 41.7 to 33.2.
  • Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.75 for Mercury 2.
  • Step 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 128K.
  • Step 3.5 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mercury 2 and Step 3.5 Flash specifications
Mercury 2Step 3.5 Flash
ProviderInceptionStepFun
Noometry Index38.841.7
Released2026-02-202026-01-29
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K256K
Max output50K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.25$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.75$0.30
Results tracked1719

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.5 Flash leads

Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250), Step 3.5 Flash: 41.7 (#106)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Coding13911436
LMArena WebDev1170—
SciCode38.7%—
WeirdML43.2%—
ALE-Bench785.58—

Reasoning Mercury 2 leads

Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170), Step 3.5 Flash: 21.2 (#202)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13621411
NYT Connections (extended)—28.4%
CritPt0.8%—

Math Not comparable

Mercury 2: —, Step 3.5 Flash: 40.6 (#77)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Step 3.5 Flash
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—66.8%
LMArena Math—1408

Knowledge Step 3.5 Flash leads

Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.0 (#127)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Expert13581422
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.3%—

Multilingual Step 3.5 Flash leads

Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153), Step 3.5 Flash: 50.7 (#115)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Non-English13311386
LMArena Chinese14161448
LMArena Russian13031385
LMArena French—1421
LMArena German—1404
LMArena Japanese—1353
LMArena Korean—1350
LMArena Spanish—1419

Instruction Following Step 3.5 Flash leads

Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161), Step 3.5 Flash: 73.3 (#119)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13281385

Long Context Step 3.5 Flash leads

Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#112)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Longer Query13291402

Writing & Preference Step 3.5 Flash leads

Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151), Step 3.5 Flash: 59.0 (#108)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMercury 2Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text13551403
LMArena Creative Writing12891357
LMArena Multi-Turn13581405

Frequently asked questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Mercury 2 lists at $0.25 and $0.75.

Is Mercury 2 or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.7 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.5 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Mercury 2 and Step 3.5 Flash share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2 has 17 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper