Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Mercury 2.5
Gemma 4 E2B IT comes out ahead, 79 to 71 on our weighted score, though Mercury 2.5 is 10% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
GoogleGemma 4 E2B IT
79/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.09
- Context131K
InceptionMercury 2.5
71/100- ECI—
- Price$0.04 / $0.15
- Context260K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemma 4 E2B IT is our pick
Gemma 4 E2B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Mercury 2.5 (71). It leads on inputs & features. Mercury 2.5 wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceMercury 2.5Mercury 2.5 $0.068 · Gemma 4 E2B IT $0.075 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMercury 2.5Mercury 2.5 260,000 · Gemma 4 E2B IT 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemma 4 E2B ITGemma 4 E2B IT: Text, Images, Audio · Mercury 2.5: Text
- Self-hostingGemma 4 E2B ITPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemma 4 E2B IT | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 79/100 | 71/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemma 4 E2B ITGoogle | Mercury 2.5Inception |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.07 | $0.04 (best) |
| Output | $0.09 (best) | $0.15 |
| Cached input | — | $0.004 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.075 | $0.068 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Official Inception API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 260,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | mercury-2.5 |
| API providers | 2 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Apr 2, 2026 | Sep 8, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Nov 1, 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemma 4 E2B IT$0.88
- Mercury 2.5$0.70
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemma 4 E2B IT or Mercury 2.5?
Gemma 4 E2B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Mercury 2.5 (71). It leads on inputs & features. Mercury 2.5 wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 4 E2B IT or Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Gemma 4 E2B IT costs $0.07 input / $0.09 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.068 per million tokens for Mercury 2.5 versus $0.075 for Gemma 4 E2B IT (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Gemma 4 E2B IT has not been scored yet and Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 4 E2B IT and Mercury 2.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mercury 2.5 has the largest context window at 260,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Gemma 4 E2B IT. Maximum output per response: Gemma 4 E2B IT up to 8,192, Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemma 4 E2B IT accepts text, images and audio; Mercury 2.5 accepts text. Gemma 4 E2B IT handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Gemma 4 E2B IT publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury 2.5 is the newest, released Sep 8, 2026. Gemma 4 E2B IT came out Apr 2, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Mercury 2.5 Nov 1, 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Laguna XS 2.1Three-way comparison
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Laguna XS 2.1Poolside
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Seed 2.0 MiniByteDance Seed
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Trinity MiniArcee AI
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Mercury 2.5 vs Laguna XS 2.1Poolside
- Mercury 2.5 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
