Free to start

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Inception: Mercury 2

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes Gemma 4 31B and Mercury 2. Switch by changing the model name.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Google: Gemma 4 31B has the lower published input-plus-output rate, more Credits provider routes and the larger context window. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

$0.45365/1MGoogle: Gemma 4 31B cheapest route

$1.055/1MInception: Mercury 2 cheapest route

not enough dataGoogle: Gemma 4 31B fastest measured p50 TTFT

not enough dataInception: Mercury 2 fastest measured p50 TTFT

The price comparison adds each route's rate for one million input tokens and one million output tokens; your cost depends on your input/output mix. Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

Google: Gemma 4 31BInception: Mercury 2

Model idgoogle/gemma-4-31b-itinception/mercury-2

Publisher Google AI Studio Inception Labs

AI IQ IQ 101#116 IQ 93#150

Context262,144 tokens128,000 tokens

Credits provider routes161

Cheapest route$0.45365/1M$1.055/1M

Cached input$0.03798/1M to $0.26375/1M$0.026375/1M

Privacy posturehas Confidential route (E2EE + ZDR)provider posture varies

Fastest measured p50 TTFTnot enough datanot enough data

Highest measured throughputnot enough datanot enough data

Recent route uptime rangenot enough datanot enough data

Modes chat chat decide

Google: Gemma 4 31B routes

Overview16 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Inception: Mercury 2 routes

Overview1 Credits routes

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.349 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.248 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash48 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K344 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Google: Gemma 4 31B42 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Google: Gemma 4 31B40 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b39 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B35 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api-azure.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="google/gemma-4-31b-it",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Google: Gemma 4 31B or Inception: Mercury 2?

Google: Gemma 4 31B has the lower published input-plus-output rate, more Credits provider routes and the larger context window. There is not enough recent probe data to compare speed.

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or Inception: Mercury 2 cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $0.45365/1M for Google: Gemma 4 31B and $1.055/1M for Inception: Mercury 2. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or Inception: Mercury 2 faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is not enough data for Google: Gemma 4 31B and not enough data for Inception: Mercury 2. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Google: Gemma 4 31B and Inception: Mercury 2 with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between google/gemma-4-31b-it and inception/mercury-2. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.