Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Mercury 3

Mercury 3 costs 28.6x less per output token than Gemini 2.5 Pro ($0.35 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle
Coding
19.1
Overall
41.8
Output $/M
$10.00
1
Mercury 3Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.35
4
vs boards won of 5 shared

Gemini 2.5 Pro or Mercury 3: which to pick

Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a coding score, 19.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mercury 3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Mercury 3 for output tokens 28.6x cheaper ($0.35 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by Design Arena: websites or Design Arena: UI components, where it leads.

Shared results
5
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
85
Mercury 3 only
0
Like-for-like categories
1 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 2.5 Pro 19.1 from 3 benchmarks, Mercury 3 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 10.6 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: UI components: Gemini 2.5 Pro 1140 against Mercury 3 1270, 16.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 2.5 Pro $10.00 against Mercury 3 $0.35 per million output tokens, 28.6x apart.
Context window
Gemini 2.5 Pro takes 1.05M tokens, Mercury 3 1M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 2.5 ProBarsMercury 3Ties
Web design14
All shared boards14
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index15 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProMercury 3Leader
SWE-bench Verified53.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev1226Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
AA Coding Index33.3Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)54.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)0.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)80.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
SciCode46.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)26.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Terminal-Bench32.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
GSO-Bench3.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
WeirdML54.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: coding1452Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1459Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1235Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image1285Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProMercury 3Leader
AA Intelligence Index16.1Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Epoch Capabilities Index145.1Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProMercury 3Leader
AA Agentic Index1.6Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
τ²-Bench Telecom54.1%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
GDPval23.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
DeepResearch Bench41.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Vending-Bench 2$574Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
BrowseComp-Plus29.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProMercury 3Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)84.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)22.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)85.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
ARC-AGI41.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
ARC-AGI-24.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1455Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: expert1452Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1453Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1274Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: homework1281Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProMercury 3Leader
AA Math Index87.7Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)87.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
OTIS Mock AIME84.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 324.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
FrontierMath, tier 40.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: math1450Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1454Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProMercury 3Leader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)63.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)60.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)68.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedCode (Vals AI)50.6%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)86.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: science1480Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1476Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1480Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1439Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
FACTS Benchmark Suite61.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProMercury 3Leader
Design Arena: websites11671244Mercury 3
Design Arena: UI components11401270Mercury 3
Design Arena: game dev11111227Mercury 3
Design Arena: data viz12211207Gemini 2.5 Pro
Design Arena: 3D1081Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Design Arena: all code categories11521240Mercury 3
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index33 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProMercury 3Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)41.9%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.5%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
IFBench48.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
DTBench82.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMCA34.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)83.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text1458Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1437Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1454Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision1263Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: English1458Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: non-English1452Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1507Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: German1487Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1461Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: Korean1434Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: French1473Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1474Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: Russian1461Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: Polish1479Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1453Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1449Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1454Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1441Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: English1261Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1300Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1270Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: humor1262Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1304Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1283Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1265Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Document1421Not measuredOnly Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProMercury 3Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.0063Fits in one request
Mercury 3$0.0003Fits in one request

Mercury 3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.092Fits in one request
Mercury 3$0.0060Fits in one request

Mercury 3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.350Fits in one request
Mercury 3$0.024Fits in one request

Mercury 3 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mercury 3
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 2.5 ProInception Mercury 3
MakerGoogleInception
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedJune 17, 2025October 16, 2026
Context window1.05M1M
Input $/Mtok$1.25$0.10
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.35
Coding index19.1Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.64Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Mercury 3 for coding?

Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a coding score, 19.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mercury 3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mercury 3 for output tokens 28.6x cheaper ($0.35 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by Design Arena: websites or Design Arena: UI components, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Mercury 3?

Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Mercury 3 costs $0.10 and $0.35. Cost per solved task is known for Gemini 2.5 Pro only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Mercury 3?

Gemini 2.5 Pro, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Mercury 3 comparison based on?

5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 2.5 Pro's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Mercury 3's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next