Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Small 3.2 24B

Mercury 2.5 costs 2.0x less per output token than Mistral Small 3.2 24B ($0.15 vs $0.30 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
Mistral Small 3.2 24BMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.30
vs $0.15 vs $0.30 per 1M output tokens. Mercury 2.5 is 2.0x cheaper.

Mercury 2.5 or Mistral Small 3.2 24B: which to pick

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Small 3.2 24B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

No benchmark has tested both yet. Mercury 2.5 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); Mistral Small 3.2 24B on Design Arena: websites, Design Arena: UI components and Design Arena: game dev. Compare them on price and context instead.

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, Mistral Small 3.2 24B not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Mistral Small 3.2 24B $0.30 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Mistral Small 3.2 24B 256K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
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
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
ALE-Bench301.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
AA Intelligence Index12.3Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
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
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)11.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)31.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured896Only Mistral Small 3.2 24B measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured907Only Mistral Small 3.2 24B measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured889Only Mistral Small 3.2 24B measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured929Only Mistral Small 3.2 24B measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured907Only Mistral Small 3.2 24B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
General benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Mistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)45.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.7%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 43 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
Mistral Small 3.2 24B$0.0003Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request
Mistral Small 3.2 24B$0.0059Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request
Mistral Small 3.2 24B$0.023Fits 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 Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
SpecificationInception Mercury 2.5Mistral Small 3.2 24B
MakerInceptionMistral AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 8, 2026June 20, 2025
Context window260K256K
Input $/Mtok$0.04$0.10
Output $/Mtok$0.15$0.30
Coding index1.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Mistral Small 3.2 24B for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Small 3.2 24B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Mistral Small 3.2 24B?

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Mistral Small 3.2 24B costs $0.10 and $0.30. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Mistral Small 3.2 24B?

Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 256K.

Has any benchmark tested both Mercury 2.5 and Mistral Small 3.2 24B?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Mercury 2.5 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); Mistral Small 3.2 24B on Design Arena: websites, Design Arena: UI components and Design Arena: game dev. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next