Advertisement
Compare/Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25) vs Mercury 2

Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25)vsMercury 2

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Google

Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25)

Input
—
Output
—
Speed
—
TTFT
—
Inception

Mercury 2

Input
$0.25/M
Output
$0.75/M
Speed
881 tok/s
TTFT
4.60s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Mercury 2
Faster (tok/s)
Mercury 2
Lower Latency
Mercury 2
Benchmarks (0-2)
Mercury 2

Pricing Comparison

MetricGemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25)Mercury 2
Input ($/M tokens)—$0.25
Output ($/M tokens)—$0.75
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Mercury 2$0.33

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25)
—
Mercury 2
881 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25)
—
Mercury 2
4.60s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Mercury 2 takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Pricing varies significantly between these models — check the table above for the exact per-token rates. Many production workloads actually surface input-token cost (retrieval-augmented prompts, code-context windows), so factor both directions.

Strengths. Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25) is strongest on Intelligence Index (5.8). Mercury 2 leads on Coding Index (31.1), Intelligence Index (11.5).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Google and Inception sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Google tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Inception often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
5.811.5
Coding Index
—31.1
Math Index
——
GPQA Diamond
——
MMLU-Pro
——
LiveCodeBench
——
AIME 2025
——
MATH-500
——
Humanity's Last Exam
——
SciCode
——
IFBench
——
TerminalBench
——
Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25)0 wins
2 winsMercury 2

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25) or Mercury 2?

Mercury 2 is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.38/M tokens vs $—/M for Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Mercury 2 wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Mercury 2 generates tokens faster at 881 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Mercury 2 has lower time-to-first-token (4.60s vs —s).

When should I use Gemma 3n E4B Instruct Preview (May '25) vs Mercury 2?

Choose based on your priorities: Mercury 2 for lower cost, Mercury 2 for stronger benchmark performance, and Mercury 2 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.