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 Opus 4.6vsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Opus 4.6vsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.6 at $0.04/M vs $5/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 4.6 and Mercury 2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 4.6Mercury 2.5
Input price$5/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$25/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens260K tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedFeb 2026Sep 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 Opus 4.61,677 words
How Large Language Models Learn and Generate Text For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of training an LLM as building the world's most aggressively optimized compression algorithm, except instead of compressing files, it's compressing the statistical structure of human language.
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

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

Claude Opus 4.62,283 words
"Tidal Memory" Slow-Cooked Octopus, White Chocolate-Dashi Velouté, Charcoal Meringue, Fermented Black Garlic, and Sea Buckthorn Conceptual Narrative "Tidal Memory" is a meditation on the liminal space where ocean meets shore — the moment a wave recedes and leaves behind a constellation of treasures on dark volcanic…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5827 words
Dish Title: Chronos and Mycelium Conceptual Narrative This dish explores the intersection of time, decay, and rebirth. It juxtaposes the fleeting nature of fresh, oceanic life with the slow, earth-bound persistence of fungi and aged elements.
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Claude Opus 4.6215 words
✨ Golden Honey-Garlic Crispy Rice Bites ✨ Ingredients Rice (2 cups, cooked and cooled — ideally day-old) Soy sauce (3 tablespoons) Honey (2 tablespoons) Garlic (3 cloves, minced) Olive oil (3 tablespoons) Sesame seeds (1 tablespoon) Red pepper flakes (½ teaspoon) Instructions Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 15 minutes…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5190 words
Pantry Pasta Primavera Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 15 minutes Servings: 2 Ingredients (7 Common Pantry Items) Pasta (spaghetti, penne, or fusilli) – 8 oz Canned crushed tomatoes – 1 can (14 oz) Olive oil – 3 tablespoons Garlic powder – 1 teaspoon Dried oregano – 1 teaspoon Parmesan cheese (grated) – ½ cup Salt and…
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 Opus 4.61,325 words
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO LedgerLift (LLLT) B2B Spend Management & AP Automation SaaS Date: June 2025 Analyst: [Redacted] Sector: Vertical SaaS / Fintech Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION LONG 12-Month Price Target: $62–$78 (Base–Bull) Current: $46 Upside: 35–70% Thesis: LedgerLift is a durable mid-market compounder with…
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 Opus 4.63,727 words
The Transistor in 1920: A Counterfactual History Setting the Stage: Why 1920 Matters The transistor's invention required understanding of quantum mechanics and semiconductor physics that barely existed in 1920.
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

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Claude Opus 4.61,395 words
Critical Analysis of MindMeld AI Pitch Deck After careful examination, here are the three weakest claims, ranked by severity: The 94% Accuracy Claim (Slide 3) — Most Problematic Why this is weak: This claim strains credulity against the entire body of published BCI research, and the lack of context makes it essentially…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5544 words
Based on the pitch deck summary, here are the three weakest claims, along with an analysis of their vulnerabilities and concrete suggestions for improvement. The "Pre-Thought" Prediction Claim Claim: "MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it."
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window, major provider backing.

Mercury 2.5 costs 167x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude Opus 4.6
Input
$5.00
Output
$25.00
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
125× cheaper
Output
$0.15
167× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 125× input, 167× output.

Where to run it

5 hosts

Claude Opus 4.64 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Amazon Bedrock$5.00 in·$25.00 out·1M·99.5% upAzure AI Foundry$5.00 in·$25.00 out·1M·99.9% upAnthropic$5.00 in·$25.00 out·1M·99.9% upGoogle Vertex AI$5.00 in·$25.00 out·1M·100% up
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 Opus 4.6 is developed by Anthropic while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Claude Opus 4.6 has a 1.0M 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 Opus 4.6 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 Opus 4.6 costs $5/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $4.96/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 Opus 4.6 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 Opus 4.6 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Claude Opus 4.6 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 Opus 4.6 logoHy3 logo
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 4.6 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 4.6 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Claude Opus 4.6 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 Opus 4.6 logoClaude Sonnet 4.6 logo
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6Version compare
Claude Opus 4.6 logoClaude Fable 5.1 logo
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Fable 5.1Same lab
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 logoQwen3 Coder Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 Coder FlashNew provider
Claude Opus 4.6 logoQwen3 Coder Next logo
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3 Coder NextNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3 Coder Plus logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 Coder PlusSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3 Max logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3 MaxNew provider

Model pages

Claude Opus 4.6 logo
Claude Opus 4.657 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