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. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813vsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813vsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 at $0.04/M vs $0.66/M input tokens.

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and Mercury 2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813Mercury 2.5
Input price$0.66/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$1.98/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens260K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedAug 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

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

Mini LBO Underwrite

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813427 words
Assumptions used Term Loan amortization = 1.0% of original $480m = $4.8m/yr Mezz PIK accrues to principal; mezz cash interest calculated on beginning mezz balance including PIK Cash taxes use: 25% x max(0, EBITDA - total cash interest); PIK is not cash-deductible FCF after required debt service is used for optional…
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 Investment Memo (IC Memo)

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813908 words
IC Memo: LedgerLift (LLLT) Recommendation: Short 12-month PT range: $25–$31 (probability-weighted DCF ~$29) Thesis: LLLT is a high-quality SaaS compounder, but at $46 the market is pricing roughly 6.5% terminal growth or ~6.3% WACC in our base model, leaving no margin for error.
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

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.…

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813662 words
The three weakest claims are the 94% accuracy solution, the $180B TAM market math, and the Apple/Samsung "partnership discussions" traction. Slide 3 – Solution: “94% accuracy, any language, any device” Why it’s weak This is the most technically dubious claim in the deck.
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

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…

DeepSeek V4 Pro 08131,665 words
Littoral Caramelised Orkney Scallop, Smoked Bone Marrow Custard, White Miso Butterscotch, Sea Buckthorn & Finger Lime Gel, Nori Buckwheat Tuile, Dill Ash Serves 4 Conceptual Narrative This dish is built on an unusual but deeply logical pairing: the sweet, saline delicacy of a hand-dived scallop and the primal…
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

Beginner's Longevity Plan

Outline a simple, actionable 1-month plan for someone starting their journey towards better health and longevity. Focus on 3 key areas…

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813448 words
1-Month Beginner Plan for Health & Longevity Focus areas: Nutrition — add whole foods, protein, and water. Movement — daily walking plus beginner strength. Recovery — sleep and stress management. Week 1: Start Small Area Action Nutrition Add one fist-sized serving of vegetables to one meal per day.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5325 words
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.
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

DeepSeek V4 Pro 08131,745 words
This contract is heavily one-sided. Several clauses could be exploited against the contractor. Below is a clause-by-clause analysis, with proposed language changes and the legal reasoning behind each. Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. You should have a qualified contract attorney review any final agreement.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5501 words
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.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window, major provider backing.

Mercury 2.5 costs 13x less per token.

Slight edge

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Input
$0.66
Output
$1.98
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
17× cheaper
Output
$0.15
13× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 17× input, 13× output.

Where to run it

23 hosts, cheapest first

DeepSeek V4 Pro 081322 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Baidu Qianfanfp8$0.40 in·$1.20 out·1M·100% upSSail Researchfp4$0.40 in·$4.30 out·1M·99.5% upSStreamLake$0.46 in·$1.39 out·1M·99.7% upWWafer$0.58 in·$2.90 out·1M·99.4% upAlibaba Cloud$0.58 in·$1.74 out·1M·100% upIIonstream$0.62 in·$2.88 out·1M·99.4% up
16 more hostsFewer hosts
DeepSeek$0.66 in·$1.98 out·1M·100% upNNovitafp8$0.99 in·$2.97 out·1M·100% upGGMI Cloudfp8$1.06 in·$3.17 out·1M·99.9% upNNextBitfp8$1.12 in·$3.37 out·1M·96% upDDeepInfrafp8$1.30 in·$2.60 out·1M·99.4% upCCoreWeavefp8$1.31 in·$3.96 out·1M·97% upAAtlasCloudfp8$1.32 in·$3.96 out·1M·99.8% upBBasetenfp4$1.32 in·$3.96 out·1M·90.8% upCloudflare Workers AI$1.32 in·$3.96 out·1M·97.7% upDDigitalOcean$1.32 in·$3.96 out·1M·99.7% upFFireworks$1.32 in·$3.96 out·1M·99.4% upPParasailfp8$1.32 in·$3.96 out·1M·99.6% upSSiliconFlowfp8$1.32 in·$3.96 out·1M·97.6% upTTogether$1.32 in·$3.96 out·1M·99.8% upPPhala$1.45 in·$4.36 out·1M·99.9% upVVenice$1.65 in·$4.95 out·1M·92.8% 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 22 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is developed by DeepSeek while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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.

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 costs $0.66/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.62/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 V4 Pro 0813 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

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 logoHy3 logo
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 logoGLM 5.3 logo
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 logoDeepSeek V3.1 logo
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs DeepSeek V3.1Version compare
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 logoDeepSeek V4.1 Flash logo
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs DeepSeek V4.1 FlashSame 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 logoNorth Mini Code logo
Mercury 2.5 vs North Mini CodeNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoAmazon Nova 2 Lite logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Amazon Nova 2 LiteNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoNova Premier 1.0 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Nova Premier 1.0Same size
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 logoo1 logo
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs o1New provider

Model pages

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 logo
DeepSeek V4 Pro 081358 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