Model comparison
Gemma 3 27B vs Mercury 2
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 3 27B #173 (Supported); Mercury 2 #129 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 3 27B and Mercury 2 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Gemma 3 27B; 0 to Mercury 2.
Updated July 28, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Gemma 3 27B only
- 16
- Mercury 2 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemma 3 27B and Mercury 2 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Mercury 2 yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Mercury 2 is priced at $0.25 input / $0.75 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 3 27B. Mercury 2 has the larger context window at 128K, compared with 32K for Gemma 3 27B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 3 27B | Mercury 2 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 3 27B$0 input / $0 output | Mercury 2$0.25 input / $0.75 output | Gemma 3 27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 3 27B31 tok/s | Mercury 2789 tok/s | Mercury 2 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 3 27B2.04 s | Mercury 23.88 s | Gemma 3 27B reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 3 27B32K | Mercury 2128K | Mercury 2 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Mercury 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 7.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 42.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 4.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -65.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 12.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Mercury 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 48.0% | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Mercury 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 31.8% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Gemma 3 27B and Mercury 2 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Gemma 3 27B and Mercury 2 today?
Gemma 3 27B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Mercury 2: $0.25 input / $0.75 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.