Gemma 2 27B vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 costs 4.3x less per output token than Gemma 2 27B ($0.15 vs $0.65 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 2 27B or Mercury 2.5: which to pick
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 2 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemma 2 27B only
- 35
- Mercury 2.5 only
- 21
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Mercury 2.5 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 12.3.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens against 8K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 2.5
Gemma 2 27B $0.0010, Mercury 2.5 $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Knowledge, 15.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- LegalBench (Vals AI): Gemma 2 27B 68.0% against Mercury 2.5 83.1%, 15.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Mercury 2.5 $0.15 per million output tokens, 4.3x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Mercury 2.5 260K.
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.
| Category | Gemma 2 27B | Bars | Mercury 2.5 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 1 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index11 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 3.7% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 4.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | Not measured | 2.4% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 34.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 18.1% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 45.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 38.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 301.6 | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1211 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 12.3 | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.1 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 18.9% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 2.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 4.3% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 8.8% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 11.8% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 36.5% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1198 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1171 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1206 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 1.4% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 3.0% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MATH level 5 | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1212 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1221 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 68.0% | 83.1% | Mercury 2.5 |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 31.3% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MMLU | 75.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1198 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1208 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 45.3% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 55.1% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 71.7% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| DTBench | 48.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMCA | 7.1% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text | 1231 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1206 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1240 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1242 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1217 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1221 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1209 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1175 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1174 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1248 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1234 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1277 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1224 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1230 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1249 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1212 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Mercury 2.5 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mercury 2.5 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Mercury 2.5 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.
| Specification | Google Gemma 2 27B | Inception Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Inception | |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 13, 2024 | September 8, 2026 |
| Context window | 8K | 260K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.04 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.15 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 1.6 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Mercury 2.5 for coding?
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 2 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Mercury 2.5?
Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Mercury 2.5 comparison based on?
1 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 2.5's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.