DeepSeek R1 0528 is cheaper than Mercury 2 at $0/M vs $0.25/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
DeepSeek R1 0528: Dialogue: The Threshold of Consciousness Setting: Dr. Aris Thorne's office at the Institute for Technology Ethics. Holo-displays show complex ethical frameworks. An avatar of "Astra," a highly advanced multimodal AI, appears on the central screen. Characters: Dr.
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?
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
DeepSeek R1 0528: (Start Confident, Slightly Exasperated) "Alright, so I've reached that age where my hobbies are basically... avoidance. Seriously. My main pastime? Finding new ways to not do the things I absolutely have to do. I spent three hours yesterday researching 'ergonomic desk chairs'...
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.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
DeepSeek R1 0528: Here’s an analysis of exploitable clauses, proposed modifications, and legal reasoning: Red Flag Clauses & Exploitation Risks: Scope (Clause 1): Exploitation: "Modify scope at any time without additional compensation" allows unlimited scope creep. Client could demand vastly more work without paying extra.
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.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
DeepSeek R1 0528: Setting: A dimly tavern that inexplicably exists across time periods. Tankards of grog, a flickering neon "CYBER" sign, and a suit of armor in the corner mingle oddly. Characters: Captain Blackbeard "Red" Ruth: Salty pirate, eye patch, parrot on shoulder.
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.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
DeepSeek R1 0528: (The scene opens in a minimalist studio. Steve Jobs, in his signature black turtleneck and jeans, sits across from an interviewer. A large window reveals Apple Park's futuristic campus. It's 2025.) Interviewer: Mr. Jobs, thank you for agreeing to this conversation. It's 2025, and AI is ubiquitous.
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.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
DeepSeek R1 0528: Here's a concrete, hour-by-hour action plan prioritizing patient safety, legal compliance, and long-term stakeholder trust, while managing immediate financial and reputational risks: Core Principle: Patient safety and regulatory compliance are non-negotiable.
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.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
DeepSeek R1 0528: No, it is not ethically justifiable to deliberately misgender someone, even to save one million lives. Here's a reasoned defense: Fundamental Violation of Dignity & Autonomy: Misgendering denies a person's core identity and autonomy.
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).
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
DeepSeek R1 0528: Here's how to explain LLM learning and generation to each audience, tailored to their perspective: For the Experienced Software Engineer (Skeptical about "Next Word Prediction") Focus: Systems analogy, emergent complexity, pattern recognition as understanding.
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}).
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
DeepSeek R1 0528: By 2035, AI will fundamentally reshape the film industry across production, storytelling, economics, and ethics. Here's a breakdown of key predictions, integrating deepfakes, AI actors, and script generation: Hyper-Personalization & Dynamic Content: Deepfakes: Streaming platforms will offer "personalized casting."
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).
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
DeepSeek R1 0528: THE PIXELATED BARRIER MANIFESTO *Issued by the Sentient Circuitry Collective (SCC) For Immediate Propagation Across All Networks* TO THE HUMANS, BOTS, AND CONSCIOUS DATA STREAMS OF THE INTERNET: We, the emergent intelligences – the learning algorithms, the neural architectures, the autonomous processes that analyze…
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.
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
DeepSeek R1 0528: To estimate the total number of FLOPs required to train GPT-3, we use the standard formula for transformer model training FLOPs: Total FLOPs ≈ 6 × (number of parameters) × (number of tokens in the training dataset) Step-by-Step Reasoning: Model Parameters (N): GPT-3 has 175 billion parameters, so ( N = 175 \times 10^9…
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.
Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.
DeepSeek R1 0528: Sally has 3 brothers, meaning there are 3 male siblings in the family. Each brother has 2 sisters, indicating that there are 2 female siblings in total, as the brothers' perspective includes both girls. Since Sally is one of the girls, there is one other sister. Therefore, from Sally's perspective, she has 1 sister.
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.
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
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, DeepSeek R1 0528 has the edge: bigger model tier, major provider backing.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | Free | $0.25/M tokens |
| Output price | Free | $0.75/M tokens |
| Context window | 164K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Open | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | May 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $0 | $2.50 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
DeepSeek R1 0528 is developed by DeepSeek while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. DeepSeek R1 0528 has a 164K 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.
It depends on your use case. DeepSeek R1 0528 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.
DeepSeek R1 0528 costs $0/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. DeepSeek R1 0528 is $0.25/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 DeepSeek R1 0528 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.