Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4 vs Mercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 leads GPT-4 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 12.3 to 6.7, and Mercury 2.5 costs 400.0x less per output token ($0.15 vs $60.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$60.00
0
Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
1
vs boards won of 1 shared

GPT-4 or Mercury 2.5: which to pick

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
1
GPT-4 only
44
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.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-4 not benchmarked, Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Intelligence, 5.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: GPT-4 6.7 against Mercury 2.5 12.3, 5.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4 $60.00 against Mercury 2.5 $0.15 per million output tokens, 400.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-4 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-4BarsMercury 2.5Ties
Intelligence01
All shared boards01
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index15 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkGPT-4Mercury 2.5Leader
SWE-bench Verified22.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
SWE-bench Lite39.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
SWE-bench (full test set)12.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
AA Coding Index13.1Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured3.7%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured4.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured2.4%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured34.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured18.1%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured45.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
SciCodeNot measured38.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured301.6Only Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding1209Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1195Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkGPT-4Mercury 2.5Leader
AA Intelligence Index6.712.3Mercury 2.5
Epoch Capabilities Index125.7Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkGPT-4Mercury 2.5Leader
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured18.9%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured4.3%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured8.8%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%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 index6 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkGPT-4Mercury 2.5Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)34.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured11.8%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
BIG-Bench Hard75.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1200Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: expert1149Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1209Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
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 GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkGPT-4Mercury 2.5Leader
ProofBenchNot measured3.0%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
GSM8K92.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: math1230Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1228Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkGPT-4Mercury 2.5Leader
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured83.1%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured31.3%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)56.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
MMLU86.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
AI2 Reasoning Challenge96.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: science1177Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1145Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1191Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1145Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkGPT-4Mercury 2.5Leader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index25 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkGPT-4Mercury 2.5Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured45.3%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured55.1%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
IFBench33.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured71.7%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
DTBench62.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMCA17.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
HellaSwag95.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
WinoGrande87.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text1206Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1201Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1191Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: English1220Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1194Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1184Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: German1198Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1137Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1087Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: French1220Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1197Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1195Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1265Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1206Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1190Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1219Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1184Not measuredOnly GPT-4 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkGPT-4Mercury 2.5Leader
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

GPT-4$0.060Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5$0.0001Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4$1.68Exceeds the context window
Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4$6.60Exceeds the context window
Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request

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.

Specifications of GPT-4 and Mercury 2.5
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4Inception Mercury 2.5
MakerOpenAIInception
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedMay 28, 2023September 8, 2026
Context window8K260K
Input $/Mtok$30.00$0.04
Output $/Mtok$60.00$0.15
Coding indexNot benchmarked1.6
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4 better than Mercury 2.5 for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4 or Mercury 2.5?

GPT-4 costs $30.00 per million input tokens and $60.00 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, GPT-4 or Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4 vs Mercury 2.5 comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4'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.

Compare next