Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2.5 vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Mercury 2.5 leads Llama 3.1 8B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 12.3 to 6.9, and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs 1.9x less per output token ($0.08 vs $0.15 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.

Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
3
Llama 3.1 8B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
17.9
Output $/M
$0.08
0
vs boards won of 3 shared

Mercury 2.5 or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct: which to pick

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for output tokens 1.9x cheaper ($0.08 vs $0.15 per million).

Shared results
3
Mercury 2.5 only
19
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct only
48
Like-for-like categories
3 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
Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 53.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Mercury 2.5 71.7% against Llama 3.1 8B Instruct 18.0%, 53.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Llama 3.1 8B Instruct $0.08 per million output tokens, 1.9x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct 131K.

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
CategoryMercury 2.5BarsLlama 3.1 8B InstructTies
Intelligence10
Reasoning10
General10
All shared boards30
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index15 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Llama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured5.4Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.7%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)4.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
IOI (Vals AI)2.4%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)34.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)18.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)45.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured11.6%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured0.8%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
WeirdMLNot measured1.7%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
ALE-Bench301.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1195Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1195Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Llama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index12.36.9Mercury 2.5
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured116.5Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Llama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
Finance Agent (Vals AI)18.9%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)2.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)4.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)8.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured16.4%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
BALROGNot measured15.1%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured25.8%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Llama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured25.9%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)11.8%5.3%Mercury 2.5
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured27.0%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1175Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1144Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1196Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Llama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured4.3Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured4.3%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured1.7%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MATH level 5Not measured22.9%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
GSM8KNot measured82.4%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1179Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1180Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Llama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)31.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured47.6%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
MMLUNot measured56.1%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1193Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1182Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1206Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1166Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Llama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Llama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)45.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
IFBenchNot measured28.6%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.7%18.0%Mercury 2.5
DTBenchNot measured50.9%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured5.4%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
PIQANot measured81.2%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena TextNot measured1187Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1159Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1154Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1218Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1148Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1151Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1144Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1061Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1053Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1178Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1169Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1158Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1172Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1181Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1162Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1145Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Llama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
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$0.0001Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.0001Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.0027Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.011Exceeds the context window

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 Mercury 2.5 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
SpecificationInception Mercury 2.5Meta Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
MakerInceptionMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 8, 2026July 23, 2024
Context window260K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.04$0.05
Output $/Mtok$0.15$0.08
Coding index1.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for output tokens 1.9x cheaper ($0.08 vs $0.15 per million).

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs $0.05 and $0.08. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?

Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct comparison based on?

3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Mercury 2.5's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next