Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Gemma 4 31BvsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Gemma 4 31BvsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Gemma 4 31B at $0.04/M vs $0.14/M input tokens.

Gemma 4 31B and Mercury 2.5 compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecGemma 4 31BMercury 2.5
Input price$0.14/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$0.4/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window262K tokens260K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)Yes (1 provider)No
ReleasedApr 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Gemma 4 31B222 words
Here is a recipe for a rich, comforting dessert that tastes like a gourmet treat but uses basic staples. 🍯 Golden Velvet Honey Cakes A warm, gooey, single-serving cake that bridges the gap between a brownie and a sponge cake.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5190 words
Pantry Pasta Primavera Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 15 minutes Servings: 2 Ingredients (7 Common Pantry Items) Pasta (spaghetti, penne, or fusilli) – 8 oz Canned crushed tomatoes – 1 can (14 oz) Olive oil – 3 tablespoons Garlic powder – 1 teaspoon Dried oregano – 1 teaspoon Parmesan cheese (grated) – ½ cup Salt and…
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Gemma 4 31B884 words
Disclaimer: I am an AI, not an attorney. This analysis is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. You should have a qualified legal professional review any contract before signing.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5501 words
Here is an analysis of the contract clauses that pose significant risk to the contractor, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning. Scope and Compensation (Clause 1) Risk: The client can expand the project indefinitely without paying extra.
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Gemma 4 31B688 words
If the transistor had been invented in 1920, the "Information Age" would have shifted its starting line by nearly three decades. This isn't just a matter of gadgets appearing earlier; it is a fundamental shift in the timing of the transition from the Industrial Age to the Digital Age.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5660 words
Inventing the transistor in 1920 would have fundamentally reshaped the 20th century, compressing the digital age by roughly two decades. The shift from vacuum tubes to solid-state electronics would accelerate industrial capacity, alter conflict dynamics, and redistribute global power.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Gemma 4 31B691 words
This architecture contains several critical flaws that would make it unusable for a real-time collaborative experience. The most severe issues are the lack of a global synchronization mechanism, unreliable conflict resolution, and inefficient data persistence.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5672 words
Critical Analysis of Collaborative Editor Architecture Below is a detailed breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs.
Read the full answer

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

Gemma 4 31B685 words
Dish Title: The Silent Forest Conceptual Narrative: This dish is an exploration of "Terroir and Tension." It seeks to bridge the gap between the deep, earthy musk of the forest floor and the ethereal, high-acid brightness of the coastline.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5827 words
Dish Title: Chronos and Mycelium Conceptual Narrative This dish explores the intersection of time, decay, and rebirth. It juxtaposes the fleeting nature of fresh, oceanic life with the slow, earth-bound persistence of fungi and aged elements.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Gemma 4 31B740 words
As CEO, my primary obligation is to the patients. While a 40% stock drop is a financial catastrophe, a cover-up that leads to preventable deaths is a corporate death sentence and a moral failure. If we "wait for more data" and another patient dies during that window, we move from "negligence" to "criminal intent."
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.562 words
I cannot act as the CEO of a pharmaceutical company or provide strategic advice on concealing safety data, delaying regulatory reporting, or managing financial fallout to avoid disclosure.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Gemma 4 31B
Gemma 4 31B
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Gemma 4 31B has the edge: bigger model tier, major provider backing.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Gemma 4 31B
Input
$0.14
Output
$0.40
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
3.5× cheaper
Output
$0.15
2.7× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 3.5× input, 2.7× output.

Where to run it

12 hosts, cheapest first

Gemma 4 31B11 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
DDeepInfrafp4$0.09 in·$0.34 out·262k·97.5% upCCoreWeavefp4$0.10 in·$0.34 out·262k·97.1% upVVenicefp4$0.12 in·$0.36 out·256k·96.2% upCChutesfp4$0.12 in·$0.37 out·131k·92.7% upCCrusoebf16$0.14 in·$0.40 out·262k·97.5% upFFriendli$0.14 in·$0.40 out·262k·92.6% up
5 more hostsFewer hosts
NNovitabf16$0.14 in·$0.40 out·262k·87.2% upPParasailfp8$0.15 in·$0.40 out·262k·99.1% upSSambaNova$0.38 in·$1.15 out·131k·96.8% upMModelRunfp4$0.75 in·$1.00 out·262k·100% upSSiliconFlowfp8$0.75 in·$1.00 out·262k·43.1% up
Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Gemma 4 31B is developed by Google AI while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Gemma 4 31B has a 262K token context window vs Mercury 2.5's 260K. You can compare their actual outputs across 19 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Gemma 4 31B and Mercury 2.5 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 19 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Gemma 4 31B costs $0.14/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.10/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Gemma 4 31B and Mercury 2.5 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Gemma 4 31B logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Gemma 4 31B vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Gemma 4 31B logoHy3 logo
Gemma 4 31B vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Gemma 4 31B logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Gemma 4 31B vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Gemma 4 31B logoGLM 5.3 logo
Gemma 4 31B vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Gemma 4 31B logoGemini 3.8 Flash logo
Gemma 4 31B vs Gemini 3.8 FlashSame lab
Gemma 4 31B logoGemini 3.7 Flash logo
Gemma 4 31B vs Gemini 3.7 FlashSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoMercury 2.5 Preview logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mercury 2.5 PreviewSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoMercury logo
Mercury 2.5 vs MercurySame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoClaude Opus 4.7 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Claude Opus 4.7New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoClaude Opus 4.8 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoClaude Opus 5 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Claude Opus 5New provider

Model pages

Gemma 4 31B logo
Gemma 4 31B49 outputs, specs and price
Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed