Navigate
Advertise here

Cobuddy (medium) vs Mercury 2.5

Cobuddy (medium) leads on average score with 4.7 vs 3.9. Cobuddy (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.000 vs $0.016. Mercury 2.5 is faster at 2.45s vs 39.90s, with pass rates of 45.5% vs 25.8%.

Last updated at: 2026-09-23

Compared models

Rank
#321
Total Output Tokens
118,380
Response Time (avg)
39.90s
Total Cost
$0.000
Rank
#342
Total Output Tokens
71,143
Response Time (avg)
2.45s
Total Cost
$0.016
Recommended model Cobuddy (medium)

It has the strongest score in this comparison (4.7) and the best overall balance of cost and response time across all 2 models.

Detailed comparison

Metric Cobuddy Cobuddy medium Release: 2026-05-06 Mercury 2.5 Mercury 2.5 none Release: 2026-09-08
Score 4.7 3.9
Rank #321 #342
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 7.2 7.5
Attempts 63/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 45.5% 25.8%
Flaky tests 6 7
Total Runs 63 66
Cost per result 0.000 0.782
Total Cost $0.000 $0.016
Input Price $0.000 / 1M $0.040 / 1M
Output Price $0.000 / 1M $0.150 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 37,449 123,740
Output Tokens 1,677 71,143
Reasoning Tokens 116,703 0
Response Time (avg) 39.90s 2.45s
Response Time (max) 309.02s 36.48s
Response Time (total) 797.98s 53.83s
Parameters ~21B total (~3B active) ~100B
Availability Closed Closed

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#321 Cobuddy

medium
No endpoints found for baidu/cobuddy:free.
Cost
$0.000
Time
0.1s
Tokens
0 tok

#342 Mercury 2.5

none
Cost
$0.001
Time
2.7s
Tokens
2,749 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Cobuddy 3.7 6.7 22.2% 1 79.17s 4,726 358 30,138
Mercury 2.5 3.7 7.0 22.2% 1 12.50s 7,888 61,297 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair