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. Claude 3.7 Thinking SonnetvsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Claude 3.7 Thinking SonnetvsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet at $0.04/M vs $6/M input tokens.

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecClaude 3.7 Thinking SonnetMercury 2.5
Input price$6/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$30/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window200K tokens260K tokens
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedFeb 2025Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 20 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet632 words
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.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5572 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of the model as a stateless microservice that has ingested the entire public internet as its training dataset. During the training phase, it performs a massive distributed optimization job, adjusting internal weights to minimize a loss function based on next-token prediction.
Read the full answer

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet290 words
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…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5403 words
1. Simplified Year-by-Year LBO Model (FY2026–FY2030) Entry Assumptions: Enterprise Value (EV): $120m × 12.0x = $1,440m Transaction Fees: $1,440m × 2.0% = $28.8m Total Debt at Close: $120m × 5.5x = $660m Term Loan: $120m × 4.0x = $480m Mezzanine: $120m × 1.5x = $180m Equity Required: $1,440m (EV) + $28.8m (Fees) − $660m…
Read the full answer

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet1,727 words
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…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5610 words
3-Month Biohacking Longevity & Performance Plan Disclaimer: I am an AI, not a physician or certified health professional. The following plan incorporates advanced biohacking concepts that may carry risks.
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…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet843 words
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…
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

Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

You are writing an internal investment committee memo for a long/short equity fund. Company (fictional): LedgerLift (ticker: LLLT) – B2B…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet760 words
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…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5735 words
To: Investment Committee From: Equity Research Date: September 22, 2026 Subject: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Initiation of Coverage Recommendation & Thesis Recommendation: Long 12-Month Price Target: $55 – $68 Thesis: LedgerLift offers a rare combination of high-quality SaaS unit economics (NRR 123%, CAC payback 18mo) and…
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…

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet755 words
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.
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
Our Verdict
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Mercury 2.5 costs 200x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet
Input
$6.00
Output
$30.00
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
150× cheaper
Output
$0.15
200× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 150× input, 200× output.

Where to run it

1 host

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet

No hosts listed on OpenRouter.

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

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet is developed by Anthropic while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet has a 200K token context window vs Mercury 2.5's 260K. You can compare their actual outputs across 20 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2.5 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 20 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet costs $6/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $5.96/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 Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet 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

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoHy3 logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoGLM 5.3 logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet 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

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoClaude 3.7 Sonnet logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude 3.7 SonnetVersion compare
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude Opus 4.6Version compare
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 logoMistral Medium 3.1 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Medium 3.1Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoMistral Nemo logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral NemoSame size
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logoMistral Small 4 logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Mistral Small 4New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoMistral Small Creative logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Small CreativeNew provider

Model pages

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet logo
Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet59 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