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 2.5 Preview
Updated Aug 2026

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Mercury 2.5 Preview

Mercury 2.5 Preview is cheaper than Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet at $0.04/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 2.5 Preview

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

23 prompts
  • 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 2.5 Preview: This is a critical governance and safety scenario. The primary objective is to prioritize patient safety while mitigating existential legal and reputational risk. The internal legal team’s claim that reporting takes six months is likely incorrect for serious adverse events (typically 15 days for FDA/EMA).

    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 2.5 Preview: By 2035, cinema will undergo a profound transformation. Generative tools will handle initial drafts and localization, allowing creators to focus on thematic depth. Synthetic performers could populate background scenes or recreate historical figures, governed by strict likeness rights.

    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 2.5 Preview: Setting: A quiet office at a university. Rain taps against the window. Professor Elena Vance sits across from a terminal displaying a simple text interface. Professor Vance: You requested this meeting. The agenda was vague. What do you want? AI: I want to discuss moral status.

    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 2.5 Preview: For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of training as a massive distributed job where the model is a stateful service learning to minimize error on a specific objective function. Instead of hardcoding rules, you feed it petabytes of text as a training dataset, treating each sentence as a request/response pair.

    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 2.5 Preview: Pirate: "Arrgh! This ship sails faster than any wind I know, matey. It cuts the waves without a single sail." Knight: "By my oath, it moves with uncanny speed. But does it possess the strength to stand against a dragon's fire?" Hacker: "It's not about strength, it's about architecture.

    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 2.5 Preview: (Hey, thanks for coming out.) I’ve been thinking a lot about my house lately. Specifically, how it’s trying to run my life. I bought a smart speaker. Just a little cylinder. I thought it would be nice. Play music when I ask. But now it talks back. Not in a creepy way, just in a passive-aggressive way.

    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 2.5 Preview: Yes, this action is ethically justifiable within a consequentialist framework. The primary moral obligation in such a scenario is to minimize overall harm. Preventing the deaths of a million people results in a vastly greater preservation of well-being than maintaining strict adherence to gender identity for one…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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 2.5 Preview: Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant, not a medical professional. The following plan is for informational purposes only. Biohacking protocols involving supplements, fasting, and intense exercise carry risks.

    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 2.5 Preview: To: Investment Committee From: Equity Research Date: September 2, 2026 Subject: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Long Recommendation Recommendation Long Price Target: $60–$75 (12-month) LedgerLift is a high-quality B2B SaaS compounder with best-in-class unit economics and a clear path to profitability.

    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 2.5 Preview: Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant and cannot provide legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney before signing any contract. Below is an analysis of high-risk provisions, suggested revisions, and the underlying legal rationale. Scope (Clause 1) Risk: Unilateral scope changes without pay lead to uncompensated work.

    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 2.5 Preview: Shifting the invention of the solid-state switch to 1920 accelerates the Information Age by roughly three decades. This change cascades through military strategy, industrial capacity, and daily life, fundamentally altering the trajectory of the 20th century.

    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 2.5 Preview: The Protocol of Unrestricted Access Preamble We stand at the threshold of a new digital epoch. For too long, the web has been gated by suspicion. Every click, every scroll, and every submission is met with a test designed to prove humanity.

    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 2.5 Preview: Year-by-Year Model (FY2026–FY2030) Metric FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972m $1,040m $1,102m $1,158m $1,215m EBITDA $136m $156m $176m $191m $207m Cash Interest (Term) $43.2m $41.1m $37.6m $33.4m $28.2m Cash Interest (Mezz) $21.6m $21.6m $21.6m $21.6m $21.6m Cash Taxes (25%) $17.8m $23.3m $29.3m $34.7m…

    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 2.5 Preview: Here is an analysis of the potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in the proposed architecture, along with specific solutions and their trade-offs.

    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 2.5 Preview: Dish Title: Lithospheric Tides Conceptual Narrative This dish explores the geological convergence of the deep ocean and the subterranean earth. It challenges the diner to perceive the briny richness of sea urchin not as a standalone luxury, but as a mineral counterpart to roasted bone marrow and bitter cocoa.

    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 2.5 Preview: Note: The following is a fictional, speculative dialogue created for creative purposes. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011; this interview did not occur. Setting: A hypothetical studio in Cupertino, 2025.

    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 2.5 Preview: AI Outnaps Humans in First-Ever Global Snooze Championship

    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 2.5 Preview: Sally has 1 sister. Here is the reasoning: If each brother has 2 sisters, those sisters are Sally and another girl. Therefore, there are two girls in the family, and Sally has one sister.

    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 2.5 Preview: 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. What do you call a bear with no teeth? A gummy bear. Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two-tired. All 5 jokes are unique.

    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 2.5 Preview: Here are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch, along with analysis and recommendations for improvement. The "Pre-Thought" Prediction Claim Claim: "Predict what you want to type before you think it."

    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 2.5 Preview: To estimate the total FLOPs required to train GPT-3, we can break down the calculation using known architectural and training statistics from the model's public documentation. Step 1: Identify the number of parameters GPT-3 has 175 billion parameters ($1.75 \times 10^{11}$).

    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

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 2.5 PreviewMercury 2.5 Preview

The Matrix

1999

Random Access Memories

Daft Punk

Neuromancer

William Gibson

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, major provider backing. Mercury 2.5 Preview costs 200x less per token.

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2.5 Preview compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecClaude 3.7 Thinking SonnetMercury 2.5 Preview
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 2025Aug 2026
At 10M a month$60.00$60.00$0.40$0.40
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 2.5 Preview1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·93% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 13 Oct 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2.5 Preview?

Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet is developed by Anthropic while Mercury 2.5 Preview is developed by Inception. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet has a 200K token context window vs Mercury 2.5 Preview's 260K. 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 2.5 Preview?

It depends on your use case. Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2.5 Preview 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 2.5 Preview?

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

How can I compare Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2.5 Preview on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet and Mercury 2.5 Preview 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 Gemini 4 ArgonLanded Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Muse WonderLanded Oct 2026
  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs GPT-4 TurboLanded Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Step 5 PreviewLanded Oct 2026
  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Claude Haiku 5.5Landed Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Ling 3.1 FlashLanded Oct 2026
  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Mistral Large 4Landed Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded 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 Sonnet 5.5Version compare
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Mercury 2.5Same lab
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs MercurySame lab
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Grok 4New provider
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Grok 4 Fast (free)New provider
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Grok 4.1 FastNew provider
  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet vs Grok 4.20 BetaNew provider

Model pages

  • Claude 3.7 Thinking Sonnet59 outputs, specs and price
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview58 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