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. Gemini 3.5 FlashvsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Gemini 3.5 FlashvsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Gemini 3.5 Flash at $0.04/M vs $1.5/M input tokens.

Gemini 3.5 Flash and Mercury 2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecGemini 3.5 FlashMercury 2.5
Input price$1.5/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$9/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens260K tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedMay 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) –…

Gemini 3.5 Flash571 words
Here is the underwriting analysis and LBO model for HarborTech Services (HTS). FY2026–FY2030 LBO Model Table ($ millions) Metric FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972.00 $1,040.04 $1,102.44 $1,157.56 $1,215.44 YoY Growth % 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 5.0% EBITDA $136.08 $156.01 $176.39 $191.00 $206.62 EBITDA Margin %…
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

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Gemini 3.5 Flash1,174 words
The Spark: The 1920 Breakthrough In 1920, Polish physicist Jan Czochralski’s method for growing single crystals of metals was applied prematurely to metalloids. Working in Germany, physical chemist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld collaborated with Czochralski to isolate high-purity germanium.
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

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…

Gemini 3.5 Flash403 words
Here is a simple, comforting, and incredibly flavorful savory dish made from basic pantry staples. Golden Umami Chickpea Bowls This dish features crispy, pan-seared chickpeas coated in a sticky, sweet-and-savory garlic butter glaze, served over a bed of fluffy white rice.
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

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…

Gemini 3.5 Flash1,341 words
Conceptual Narrative: "Coniferous Tide" "Coniferous Tide" is an avant-garde exploration of the liminal space where the rugged, primeval forests of the Pacific Northwest meet the cold, nutrient-rich depths of the northern Pacific Ocean.
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

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

Gemini 3.5 Flash580 words
The 90-Day Epigenetic & Performance Optimization Protocol Disclaimer This protocol is designed for informational and educational purposes only. It is not medical advice. The strategies outlined below involve highly potent compounds, physiological stressors, and intensive physical regimens.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5610 words
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.
Read the full answer

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…

Gemini 3.5 Flash975 words
To the Experienced Software Engineer At runtime, a Large Language Model (LLM) is essentially a massive, stateless, read-only function executed inside a deterministic loop. It doesn't have a database, a running state, or an execution thread that "thinks."
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
Our Verdict
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Mercury 2.5 costs 60x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash
Input
$1.50
Output
$9.00
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
38× cheaper
Output
$0.15
60× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 38× input, 60× output.

Where to run it

3 hosts, cheapest first

Gemini 3.5 Flash2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Google Vertex AI$0.75 in·$4.50 out·1M·69.5% upGoogle AI Studio$1.50 in·$9.00 out·1M·99.8% 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 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Gemini 3.5 Flash is developed by Google AI while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Gemini 3.5 Flash 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. Gemini 3.5 Flash 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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash costs $1.5/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $1.46/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 Gemini 3.5 Flash 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

Gemini 3.5 Flash logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Gemini 3.5 Flash logoHy3 logo
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Gemini 3.5 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Gemini 3.5 Flash logoGLM 5.3 logo
Gemini 3.5 Flash 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

Gemini 3.5 Flash logoGemini 3.8 Flash logo
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 FlashSame lab
Gemini 3.5 Flash logoGemini 3.7 Flash logo
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 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 logoGemini 3.8 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Gemini 3.8 FlashSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoGemini Pro 1.0 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Gemini Pro 1.0Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoGemma 3 12B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Gemma 3 12BSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoGemma 3 27B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Gemma 3 27BCross-provider

Model pages

Gemini 3.5 Flash logo
Gemini 3.5 Flash58 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