Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 2 27B vs Mercury 2

Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2 cost about the same per output token ($0.65 vs $0.75 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 19 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 2 27B Replace Mercury 2
Gemma 2 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.65
0
Mercury 2Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.75
19
vs boards won of 19 shared

Gemma 2 27B or Mercury 2: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 1.2x cheaper ($0.65 vs $0.75 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Model AGemma 2 27BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BMercury 2InceptionNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
19
Gemma 2 27B only
17
Mercury 2 only
23
Like-for-like categories
4 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
Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Mercury 2 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 28.8 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Chinese: Gemma 2 27B 1221 against Mercury 2 1414, 32.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Mercury 2 $0.75 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
Context window
Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Mercury 2 128K.

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
CategoryGemma 2 27BBarsMercury 2Ties
Coding02
Reasoning03
Knowledge03
General011
All shared boards019
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2Leader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1171Only Mercury 2 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured31.1Only Mercury 2 measured
SciCodeNot measured37.7%Only Mercury 2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured26.5%Only Mercury 2 measured
WeirdMLNot measured43.2%Only Mercury 2 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured785.6Only Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: coding12111390Mercury 2
LMArena Text: software and IT12281385Mercury 2
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1160Only Mercury 2 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1199Only Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2Leader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured10.8Only Mercury 2 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index122.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.6Only Mercury 2 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured70.8%Only Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured77.0%Only Mercury 2 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured17.1%Only Mercury 2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)36.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts11981362Mercury 2
LMArena Text: expert11711358Mercury 2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12061374Mercury 2
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2Leader
OTIS Mock AIME1.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
MATH level 527.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: math1212Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1221Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2Leader
LegalBench (Vals AI)68.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
MMLU75.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: science12281343Mercury 2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare11981363Mercury 2
LMArena Text: legal and government1241Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: business and finance12081349Mercury 2
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1036Only Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured998Only Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured985Only Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1009Only Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured983Only Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1022Only Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured998Only Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured988Only Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index011
General benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2Leader
IFBenchNot measured69.8%Only Mercury 2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured43.7%Only Mercury 2 measured
DTBench48.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMCA7.1%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text12311354Mercury 2
LMArena Text: instruction following12061328Mercury 2
LMArena Text: creative writing12401286Mercury 2
LMArena Text: English12421378Mercury 2
LMArena Text: non-English12171330Mercury 2
LMArena Text: Chinese12211414Mercury 2
LMArena Text: German1209Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1175Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Korean1174Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: French1248Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1228Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: Russian12341304Mercury 2
LMArena Text: Polish1277Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn12241357Mercury 2
LMArena Text: longer queries12301329Mercury 2
LMArena Text: writing and language12491300Mercury 2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12121314Mercury 2
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2Leader
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

Gemma 2 27B$0.0010Fits in one request
Mercury 2$0.0006Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.034Exceeds the context window
Mercury 2$0.015Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.137Exceeds the context window
Mercury 2$0.058Exceeds the context window

Mercury 2 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 Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 2 27BInception Mercury 2
MakerGoogleInception
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 13, 2024March 4, 2026
Context window8K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.65$0.25
Output $/Mtok$0.65$0.75
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Mercury 2 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 1.2x cheaper ($0.65 vs $0.75 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Mercury 2?

Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Mercury 2 costs $0.25 and $0.75. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Mercury 2?

Mercury 2, with 128K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Mercury 2 comparison based on?

19 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Mercury 2's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next