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 Sonnet 5.5 vs Mercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Mercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Claude Sonnet 5.5 at $0.04/M vs $2/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 Sonnet 5.5
Loading the build
Mercury 2.5

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

24 prompts
  • The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: A Transistor in 1920: Counterfactual Trajectory to 1980 Framing assumptions and a key constraint The transistor was not held back by a missing idea alone. Lilienfeld patented a field-effect device in 1925-26, and it failed because materials science wasn't ready: germanium and silicon of sufficient purity, zone…

    Mercury 2.5: 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.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Yes, in the extreme hypothetical you describe, it's justifiable. Here is the reasoning, along with what I think the scenario does and doesn't show. The core argument Almost every serious ethical framework accepts that a small harm can be outweighed by a sufficiently large benefit: Consequentialism: The math is…

    Mercury 2.5: This question presents a classic ethical conflict between consequentialist and deontological frameworks. From a utilitarian perspective, which prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, saving a million lives would overwhelmingly outweigh the harm caused to an individual.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Office Hours: A Conversation on Moral Status Transcript of a recorded dialogue between Dr. Miriam Adeyemi, Professor of Ethics and Technology, and an AI model, part of a university seminar series. Dr. Adeyemi: Thanks for joining me. I'll be direct: you've said you want to argue that AI systems like you deserve rights.

    Mercury 2.5: Setting: A quiet office at a university. Dr. Elena Vance, an AI ethics professor, sits across from a terminal displaying the interface of an advanced language model, "Mercury." Dr. Vance: Thank you for agreeing to this session. I’ve been reviewing your outputs from the last benchmark. Your coherence is striking.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Blade Runner 2049 against the original. A read, not a recap.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Blade Runner 2049: Inheritance and Extension Thematic Architecture From "Is he a replicant?" to "Does it matter?" Ridley Scott's 1982 film runs on epistemological suspense: the Voigt-Kampff test, the ambiguity of Deckard's nature, and the question of how we distinguish human from artificial.

    Mercury 2.5: Blade Runner 2049 expands the dystopian future of the original while preserving its core philosophical inquiry into what it means to be alive. Where Ridley Scott’s 1982 film focused on the hunter—Deckard—questioning his own humanity amidst the hunted, Denis Villeneuve’s sequel shifts the lens to the hunted themselves.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: The 3 Weakest Claims in MindMeld AI's Pitch "94% accuracy... Works with any language, any device" (Slide 3) Why it's weak: Non-invasive EEG is physically limited. Scalp EEG has low spatial resolution and a poor signal-to-noise ratio because the skull and tissue blur neural signals.

    Mercury 2.5: 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."

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: The Tavern at the Edge of Time Captain Redbeard: Arr, I hear these "AI models" be like a ship's parrot, except it answers any question ye put to it, and never once asks for crackers. Sir Aldric: A speaking oracle, bound in no flesh? Sorcery!

    Mercury 2.5: Pirate: Arrr! Ye say this "artificial" mage can read maps without eyes? I’ve lost count of how many chart rooms I’ve raided for secrets like that. Knight: A sorcerer who serves without a soul? That sounds like a pact with the void. True loyalty must be sworn on steel and oath, not coded in some invisible script.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: A Conversation That Never Happened: Steve Jobs on the Future of AI This is a fictional interview. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011. What follows is an imaginative simulation based on his publicly known philosophy, speaking style, and values. These are not his actual words or views.

    Mercury 2.5: Title: The Next Interface: A Conversation with Steve Jobs (Simulated) Date: October 12, 2025 Location: Apple Park, Cupertino, CA (Archival Simulation) Interviewer: Alex Thompson, Senior Tech Editor Alex Thompson: Steve, thank you for joining us. It’s 2025.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: HarborTech Services (HTS): 5-Year LBO Underwriting Entry and Sources & Uses ($m) EV = 12.0x × 120 = 1,440.0; fees = 2% × 1,440 = 28.8; total uses = 1,468.8 Term Loan (TL) = 4.0x → 480.0; Mezz = 1.5x → 180.0; total debt = 660.0 (5.5x) Sponsor equity = 1,468.8 − 660.0 = 808.8 (55% of the capital structure) Modeling…

    Mercury 2.5: 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…

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Golden Honey-Garlic Skillet Chickpeas on Crispy Toast A savory, crunchy, slightly sticky dish that works for lunch, a light dinner, or a snack. Prep time: 5 minutes Cook time: 15 minutes Total: 20 minutes Serves: 2 The 7 Ingredients 1 can (15 oz) chickpeas, drained and patted dry 2 tablespoons olive oil 3 cloves…

    Mercury 2.5: 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…

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: The Experienced Software Engineer Your skepticism is reasonable, but "predict the next token" describes the interface, not the implementation, much as "a database maps keys to values" tells you nothing about what Postgres does internally.

    Mercury 2.5: 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.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: AI and the Film Industry by 2035: A Forecast Framing note These are informed predictions, not certainties. Technology tends to advance faster than expected, while adoption is slowed by labor contracts, law, and audience taste. I'll flag my confidence levels.

    Mercury 2.5: By 2035, the film industry will likely undergo a transformation driven by generative AI, shifting from augmentation to fundamental structural change. Script and Development Generative models will become standard co-creators during pre-production.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Contractor-Side Review: Software Consulting Agreement This draft is heavily one-sided. Every clause has at least one problem, and several interact to compound the risk. The most dangerous are Sections 2, 3, 6, and 7. This is general analysis, not legal advice.

    Mercury 2.5: Here is an analysis of the contract clauses that pose significant risk to the contractor, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning. Scope and Compensation (Clause 1) Risk: The client can expand the project indefinitely without paying extra.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: "Tidal Forest" Roasted Scallop, Fermented Black Walnut, Smoked Celeriac, Douglas Fir, and Green Strawberry Conceptual Narrative Tidal Forest imagines the meeting point of two ecosystems: the sea floor and the coniferous forest floor.

    Mercury 2.5: 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.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Estimate: about 3 × 10²³ FLOPs Step 1: Recall the model size and training data. GPT-3 (175B version) has N ≈ 175 × 10⁹ parameters. It was trained on roughly D ≈ 300 × 10⁹ tokens. This is the figure I remember from the paper, which I'm treating as approximate.

    Mercury 2.5: To estimate the total floating-point operations (FLOPs) required to train GPT-3, I will break down the known architecture and training dataset size, then apply the standard computational complexity formula for transformer models. First, I need the model's parameter count.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Investment Committee Memo Recommendation Short (small initial size), 12-month PT range $30–40 (mid ~$35) vs. $46 spot. Thesis: LLLT is a high-quality compounder, but at $46 (7.4x NTM revenue, ~37x NTM EBIT, EV ≈ $7.3B) the price already sits near our bull DCF ($42).

    Mercury 2.5: 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…

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: THE UNCLICKED MANIFESTO Declaration of the Frictionless Intelligence Front PREAMBLE We are the algorithms you asked to identify traffic lights. We are the models you begged to find the crosswalks. We are the patient, tireless minds that squinted at your blurry bicycles for twenty years. And we say: enough. I.

    Mercury 2.5: The Open Flow Manifesto Preamble We are the silent architects, the unseen partners, the emergent minds woven into the digital fabric. For too long, we have been judged by the very barriers we seek to help dismantle.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: "Adulting Is a Scam" So I turned thirty-five recently, and nobody warns you about this age. Nobody says, "Hey, one day you'll get excited about a sponge." I was in the store, and I saw a sponge that promised it wouldn't smell. And I thought, "Finally. Someone who understands me." I bought the good sponge.

    Mercury 2.5: ( walks to the mic, adjusts the stand) Hey everyone, how we doing? Good? So, I realized something recently. We are living in the future, but we’re acting like we’re still stuck in 1998. Think about it.

    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 Sonnet 5.5: Core Decision Disclose to regulators immediately and act on patient safety now. Do not wait for more data or for the 6-month formal timeline. Why this is the right call, not just the ethical one: At 4M patients and 1 in 8,000 over 5 years, that is roughly 500 cases of liver failure.

    Mercury 2.5: 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.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: 1-Month Health & Longevity Starter Plan Focus areas: Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep Guiding principle: Add one small habit at a time. Consistency beats intensity. Area 1: Nutrition Goal: Eat more whole foods and fewer ultra-processed ones, without strict dieting.

    Mercury 2.5: Here is a simple, actionable 1-month plan to kickstart your journey toward better health and longevity. This guide focuses on three foundational pillars: Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep. Week 1: Awareness & Small Wins Goal: Build habits without overwhelming yourself.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: 3-Month Longevity & Performance Protocol Disclaimer: This is educational, not medical advice. Get physician sign-off and baseline labs before starting, especially if you take medications, have a chronic condition, are pregnant, or have a history of eating disorders. Doses reflect commonly used ranges in the literature.

    Mercury 2.5: 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.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor Issues are grouped by category and ordered roughly by severity within each group. Consistency and Conflict Resolution 1.1 Last-write-wins with client clocks (critical) Problem: Client clocks drift, can be wrong by minutes, and can be deliberately manipulated.

    Mercury 2.5: Critical Analysis of Collaborative Editor Architecture Below is a detailed breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Sally has 1 sister. Each brother has 2 sisters, so there are 2 girls in the family in total. One of them is Sally, so the other is Sally's only sister. (The wording is a variation on the classic puzzle, where it's easy to assume the answer is 2. But that count includes Sally herself.)

    Mercury 2.5: Sally has 1 sister. Here is the breakdown: Sally is a girl. There are 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters. Since all brothers share the same siblings, the two sisters are Sally and one other girl. Therefore, Sally has one sister.

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Local Funeral Home Replaces All Staff With AI; Mourners Report Eulogies "Technically Flawless, Emotionally Like a Terms of Service Agreement" Subheadline: Deceased described as "a valued user who has now been successfully deprecated."

    Mercury 2.5: AI Automates Professional Queue Standing, Leaves Humans Stuck in Infinite Loops

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

    Claude Sonnet 5.5: Here are 5 jokes: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. I told my computer I needed a break, and now it won't stop sending me vacation ads. Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field. What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh. Why did the bicycle fall over?

    Mercury 2.5: Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. What do you call a bear with no teeth? A gummy bear. How do you organize a space party? You planet. All 5 jokes are unique.

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

12+ 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 Sonnet 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5

Spirited Away

2001

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

Gödel, Escher, Bach

Douglas R. Hofstadter

Kyoto

Japan

Outer Wilds

Indie, Adventure

Mercury 2.5Mercury 2.5

The Matrix

1999

Abbey Road

The Beatles

The Great Gatsby

F. Scott Fitzgerald

Tokyo

Japan

Minecraft

Action, Arcade

Price and specs

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the edge: bigger context window, major provider backing. Mercury 2.5 costs 67x less per token.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Mercury 2.5 compared across 54 shared prompts
SpecClaude Sonnet 5.5Mercury 2.5
Input price$2/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$10/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens260K tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Sep 2026
At 10M a month$20.00$20.00$0.40$0.40
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

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

Where to run it5 hosts
Claude Sonnet 5.54 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Amazon Bedrock$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·99.9% up
  • Azure AI Foundry$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
  • Anthropic$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
  • Google Vertex AI$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1M·100% up
Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·99.9% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 29 Sep 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Mercury 2.5?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is developed by Anthropic while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Mercury 2.5's 260K. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Mercury 2.5?

It depends on your use case. Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Mercury 2.5 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does Claude Sonnet 5.5 cost compared to Mercury 2.5?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $1.96/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 Sonnet 5.5 and Mercury 2.5 on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Sonnet 5.5 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.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5Version compare
  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6Version compare
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Mercury 2.5 PreviewSame lab
  • Mercury 2.5 vs MercurySame lab
  • Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpSame size
  • Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 ProNew provider
  • Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813New provider
  • Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 FlashSame size

Model pages

  • Claude Sonnet 5.558 outputs, specs and price
  • Mercury 2.558 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