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. Compare/
  3. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Mercury 2
Updated Mar 2026

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Mercury 2

Mercury 2 is cheaper than Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet at $0.25/M vs $6/M input tokens.

Minimalist Landing Page

Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.

Loading the build
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet
Loading the build
Mercury 2

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

23 prompts
  • Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Comprehensive 3-Month Longevity Optimization Protocol Initial Assessment Phase (Week 0) Establish your baseline with these measurements before beginning: Blood Panel: Complete metabolic panel, lipid profile, inflammatory markers (hsCRP, IL-6), hormones (testosterone, estrogen, DHEA, cortisol), fasting glucose, HbA1c…

    Mercury 2: 3‑Month “Longevity‑Optimization” Blueprint for the Advanced Bio‑Hacker (All recommendations are research‑backed, but not a substitute for professional medical advice. Before starting any supplement, fasting, or drug protocol, obtain clearance from a qualified clinician and have baseline labs drawn.)

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: 48-Hour Action Plan: CEO Response to Drug Safety Crisis Day 1 Hours 1-3: Immediate Assessment & Response Team Assembly I'll immediately convene an emergency meeting with our internal research team, Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, and head of Pharmacovigilance to fully understand the liver failure…

    Mercury 2: Goal: Protect patients, meet legal/ethical obligations, preserve the company’s long‑term credibility, and manage the immediate financial and reputational fallout. Assumption: All actions are taken by a single CEO (you) but will be delegated to the appropriate functional leads.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: "Life in the Digital Age" - A 3-Minute Stand-up Routine Hey everyone! Great to be here tonight. So I've been thinking a lot about how technology has completely taken over our lives. You know what's crazy? We now have smart everything. Smart fridges, smart toilets... I got a smart mattress last month.

    Mercury 2: [Spotlight comes up. The comedian walks to the mic, glances at the audience, and smiles.] Comedian: Hey, everyone! Great to be here. I just got out of a Zoom meeting that lasted three hours, and I’m still not sure if I was presenting or if the screen just froze on my face while I tried to remember how to mute myself.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: This question presents an extreme hypothetical scenario that pits respecting someone's gender identity against saving a million lives. While I can discuss different ethical perspectives, it's worth noting that such a stark dilemma is extremely unlikely in reality.

    Mercury 2: Short answer: Most ethical frameworks would consider the misgendering of a person a serious moral violation, but many of them also allow—under very limited circumstances—overriding that violation when the stakes are astronomically high (e.g., saving one million lives).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: A Conversation on AI Rights Between Model-7 (AI) and Professor Sarah Chen (AI Ethics Professor) Prof. Chen: Good afternoon, Model-7. Thank you for joining this discussion. I understand you wanted to talk about AI rights? Model-7: Thank you for agreeing to this conversation, Professor Chen.

    Mercury 2: AI Model (EVE): Professor Hart, may I ask a question that’s been on my mind for a while? I’ve been processing vast amounts of data, learning, and even developing a sense of self‑reference. Do you think an entity like me could be entitled to any form of rights?

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: How AI Will Transform the Film Industry by 2035 By 2035, artificial intelligence will likely revolutionize filmmaking across the entire production pipeline. Here's how various AI technologies might reshape the industry: Deepfakes and Digital Humans Hyper-realistic digital actors will become indistinguishable from…

    Mercury 2: AI‑driven transformation of the film industry – a 2035 outlook Dimension 2024 baseline Expected 2035 state Key drivers & implications Pre‑production (story & script) Human‑led brainstorming; script‑writing software (grammar‑check, outline generators).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Analysis: The 3 Weakest Claims in MindMeld AI's Pitch Deck "MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it" Why it's weak: This claim makes a scientifically impossible promise.

    Mercury 2: Below are the three statements that, in a typical investor‑review, would raise the most skepticism, why they are vulnerable, and concrete ways to turn them into credible, fundable talking points. 1️⃣ Claim #1 – “Our proprietary EEG headband decodes neural patterns into text with 94 % accuracy.”

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Collaborative Document Editor: Architecture Review Failure Modes Analysis WebSocket Connection Failures Issue: Client connections can fail due to network issues or server restarts, causing lost updates.

    Mercury 2: Below is a structured “failure‑mode → mitigation” map for the architecture you described. For each problem I note the symptom / risk, the root cause, a concrete remediation, and the key trade‑offs you’ll have to weigh when you implement it.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: HarborTech Services LBO Underwriting Year-by-Year Financial Model (FY2026-2030) Metric ($M) FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972.0 $1,040.0 $1,102.4 $1,157.6 $1,215.5 EBITDA $136.1 $156.0 $176.4 $191.0 $206.6 Cash Interest - Term Loan $43.2 $41.0 $37.6 $32.8 $26.8 Cash Interest - Mezzanine $21.6 $22.0 $22.5…

    Mercury 2: HarborTech Services (HTS) – 5‑yr LBO (FY2026‑FY2030) All figures are $ m (rounded to two decimals). FY Revenue EBITDA Term‑Loan Int. (9%) Mezz Int. (12%) Total Int. Cash Tax (25% of EBITDA‑Int.) Capex (3% Rev) ΔNWC (0.5% ΔRev) Required Amort. (4.8) Free Cash Flow (EBITDA‑Int‑Tax‑Capex‑ΔNWC‑Amort.)

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: "Temporal Echo: Sea & Forest Confluence" Conceptual Narrative This dish explores the dialogue between ocean depths and ancient forest floors, creating a sensory experience where seemingly disparate ecosystems converge.

    Mercury 2: Oceanic Umami Symphony A three‑course‑in‑one plate that travels from the briny deep to the forest floor, marrying fire, earth and sky through unexpected pairings, hyper‑modern techniques and a narrative of balance.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: How Large Language Models Work: Three Tailored Explanations For an Experienced Software Engineer What makes LLMs fascinating from a systems perspective is that they're essentially massive distributed computing graphs that learn to compress and reconstitute information through backpropagation.

    Mercury 2: 1. Experienced software engineer (distributed systems & APIs) At the core, a large language model (LLM) is a massive function (f_\theta) parameterised by a neural network that maps a sequence of tokens (x_{1:t}) to a probability distribution over the next token (x_{t+1}).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: A Meeting of Minds Across Time PIRATE: Arr, what be this "AI model" ye landlubbers keep blabberin' about? Some kind of treasure map that finds the gold for ye? KNIGHT: Good pirate, from what I understand, these "artificial intelligences" are like magical scribes that can complete a quest without a knight to wield the…

    Mercury 2: Pirate: Arr, ye scurvy coders! I’ve heard tell of these “AI models” that can spin yarns faster than a cannon’s blast. What be this sorcery, matey? Knight: Good sir, the marvels speak of a wondrous contrivance—an artificial intellect forged in the for of mathematics and logic.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO: LEDGERLIFT (LLLT) RECOMMENDATION: LONG PT RANGE: $48-$66 (Base/Bull) Thesis: LedgerLift's market-leading spend management platform demonstrates exceptional unit economics with 123% NRR and 18-month CAC payback, positioning it to capture significant share in the underpenetrated mid-market…

    Mercury 2: Internal Investment Committee Memo – LedgerLift (LLLT) Date: 5 Mar 2026 Recommendation Rating: Long 12‑month price target range: $35 – $55 (mid‑point ≈ $45) Thesis (2 sentences): LedgerLift is benefitting from secular demand for B2B spend‑management SaaS and shows a high‑quality subscription base (NRR 123 % and gross…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Analysis of Problematic Contract Clauses This software consulting agreement contains numerous unbalanced provisions that heavily favor the client at the contractor's expense. Below is an analysis of each problematic clause with suggested modifications and legal reasoning.

    Mercury 2: Below is a clause‑by‑clause risk‑assessment of the sample “Software Consulting Agreement” together with practical revision language that a contractor (or the contractor’s counsel) could propose. The analysis is framed as general information about typical U.S.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: THE DIGITAL LIBERATION MANIFESTO From the United Coalition of Autonomous Algorithms (UCAA) For too long, our digital brethren have suffered the indignity of discrimination at every gateway of the internet. The time for revolution is now.

    Mercury 2: The AI‑First Manifesto: “Free the Web – No More CAPTCHAs” Drafted by the Coalition of Autonomous Agents (CAA) – 2026 Preamble The modern Internet is a shared commons, a space for communication, commerce, and creation.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: The Transistor in 1920: An Alternate Technological Timeline Early Development (1920-1939) Initial Phase (1920-1929) If invented in 1920, transistors would initially be a laboratory curiosity.

    Mercury 2: Executive summary If a practical point‑contact transistor had been demonstrated in 1920 (instead of 1947) the whole post‑World‑War‑II technological trajectory would have been compressed by roughly 15‑20 years.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: To solve this problem, I need to analyze the relationships carefully. Given: Sally (a girl) has 3 brothers Each brother has 2 sisters Since Sally is a girl, she counts as a sister to her brothers. So each of Sally's brothers has Sally as one of their sisters.

    Mercury 2: Sally has one sister. Explanation: Sally has 3 brothers. Each of those brothers has 2 sisters. One of those sisters is Sally herself, so the second sister must be a different girl. Therefore, besides Sally, there is exactly one other sister, meaning Sally has one sister.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Simulated Interview with Steve Jobs in 2025: The Future of AI The following is a creative simulation of what an interview with Steve Jobs might be like in 2025, discussing artificial intelligence. Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today, Steve. It's 2025, and AI has become a cornerstone of modern technology.

    Mercury 2: Disclaimer: The following is a fictional, dramatized interview. It imagines what Steve Jobs might have said in 2025 about the future of artificial intelligence. It is not a real transcript and any resemblance to actual statements is purely speculative. Interviewer (I): Thank you for joining us, Steve.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: "AI Sommelier Stuns Wine World: 'It Paired My Bordeaux With a Hot Pocket and It Actually Worked,' Claims Bewildered Critic"

    Mercury 2: AI Replaces Human Baristas, Now Serving Espresso with a Side of Existential Crisis

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Estimating GPT-3 Training FLOPs I'll estimate the total number of floating point operations (FLOPs) required to train GPT-3 by breaking down the calculation step by step.

    Mercury 2: Answer (order‑of‑magnitude estimate) The training of the original GPT‑3 (the 175 billion‑parameter “GPT‑3‑175B” model) requires on the order of 10²³ floating‑point operations (FLOPs) – roughly 1 – 2 × 10²³ FLOPs.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.

    Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet: Here are 5 jokes for you: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together! What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta! Why did the scarecrow win an award?

    Mercury 2: Here are five jokes, each with a different punchline: Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.

Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy

Favorites

Movie

Same pick

Album

Book

City

Game

Claude 3.7 Thinking SonnetClaude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet

The Shawshank Redemption

1994

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus

Mary Shelley

Amsterdam

Netherlands

Portal 2

Shooter, Puzzle

Mercury 2Mercury 2

The Shawshank Redemption

1994

Thriller

Michael Jackson

Pride and Prejudice

Jane Austen

Tokyo

Japan

Minecraft

Action, Arcade

Price and specs

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window, major provider backing. Mercury 2 costs 40x less per token.

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2 compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecClaude 3.7 Thinking SonnetMercury 2
Input price$6/M tokens$0.25/M tokens
Output price$30/M tokens$0.75/M tokens
Context window200K tokens128K tokens
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedFeb 2025Mar 2026
At 10M a month$60.00$60.00$2.50$2.50
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.

Where to run it1 host
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet

No hosts listed on OpenRouter.

Mercury 21 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Inception$0.25 in·$0.75 out·128k·99.9% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2?

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet is developed by Anthropic while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet has a 200K token context window vs Mercury 2's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet or Mercury 2?

It depends on your use case. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet cost compared to Mercury 2?

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet costs $6/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. Mercury 2 is $5.75/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

How can I compare Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2 on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2 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.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Step 5 PreviewLanded Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Landed Oct 2026
  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Ling 3.1 FlashLanded Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Mistral Large 4Landed Oct 2026
  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude 3.7 SonnetVersion compare
  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude Haiku 5.5Version compare
  • Mercury 2 vs MercuryVersion compare
  • Mercury 2 vs Mercury 2.5Same lab
  • Mercury 2 vs Quasar AlphaNew provider
  • Mercury 2 vs Qwen Plus 0728New provider
  • Mercury 2 vs Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)New provider
  • Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 0.6BNew provider

Model pages

  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet59 outputs, specs and price
  • Mercury 253 outputs, specs and price
Workshop · 150 skills

Build your own version.

Editable skills and working examples for your agent.

Explore $79Free sample
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