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 3.8 FlashvsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Gemini 3.8 FlashvsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Gemini 3.8 Flash at $0.04/M vs $0.75/M input tokens.

Gemini 3.8 Flash and Mercury 2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecGemini 3.8 FlashMercury 2.5
Input price$0.75/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$3.75/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens260K tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

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

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 3.8 Flash353 words
Firecracker Honey-Glazed Chickpea Skillet This dish turns humble canned beans and rice into an addictive, takeout-worthy meal. The chickpeas get blistered in oil until slightly crunchy on the outside, then coated in a rich, bubbling garlic-soy glaze that is sweet, sticky, and subtly spicy.
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

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 3.8 Flash982 words
To the Experienced Software Engineer Think of a Large Language Model not as a chatty mind, but as a lossy, compiled runtime built from hundreds of terabytes of unstructured execution traces (human text and code). When you write a program, you define explicit state transitions, control flow, and data structures.
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

Mini LBO Underwrite

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

Gemini 3.8 Flash661 words
Here is the underwriting analysis for HarborTech Services (HTS). Transaction Summary & Sources & Uses Enterprise Value (EV): $120.0\text{m} \times 12.0\text{x} = \$1,440.0\text{m}$ Transaction Fees: $2.0\% \times \$1,440.0\text{m} = \$28.8\text{m}$ Total Uses: $\$1,440.0\text{m} + \$28.8\text{m} = \$1,468.8\text{m}$…
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 3.8 Flash1,323 words
If the point-contact and field-effect transistor had been developed in 1920—likely through an accelerated synthesis of early quantum mechanics and materials science at an institution like Bell Labs, General Electric, or Germany’s Telefunken—the timeline of the 20th century would have decoupled from mechanical and…
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

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…

Gemini 3.8 Flash946 words
MEMORANDUM TO: Investment Committee FROM: Technology / Software Practice DATE: March 2025 SUBJECT: LedgerLift (NASDAQ: LLLT) – Investment Recommendation & Valuation Recommendation & Investment Thesis Recommendation: SHORT (High valuation disconnect / multiple compression thesis) Current Share Price: $46.00 Market Cap…
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

Adversarial Contract Review

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

Gemini 3.8 Flash1,539 words
This contract is exceptionally one-sided and presents severe financial, operational, and legal risks. Virtually every clause heavily favors the Client, effectively treating the Contractor as an insurer of the Client’s operations while stripping the Contractor of rights to their own tools, livelihoods, and payment.
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
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Gemini 3.8 Flash has the edge: bigger context window, major provider backing.

Mercury 2.5 costs 25x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Gemini 3.8 Flash
Input
$0.75
Output
$3.75
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
19× cheaper
Output
$0.15
25× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 19× input, 25× output.

Where to run it

3 hosts, cheapest first

Gemini 3.8 Flash2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Google Vertex AI$0.38 in·$1.88 out·1M·91.5% upGoogle AI Studio$0.75 in·$3.75 out·1M·99.9% 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

Gemini 3.8 Flash is developed by Google AI while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 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 3.8 Flash costs $0.75/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.71/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 3.8 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 3.8 Flash logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 Flash logoHy3 logo
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Gemini 3.8 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 Flash logoGLM 5.3 logo
Gemini 3.8 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 3.8 Flash logoGemini 3.7 Flash logo
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 FlashSame lab
Gemini 3.8 Flash logoGemini 3.6 Flash logo
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Gemini 3.6 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
Gemini 3.8 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash Fin (free) logo
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (free)Same size
Gemini 3.8 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash Sante (free) logo
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (free)Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash VL (free) logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL (free)Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoLlama 3 70B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Llama 3 70BSame size

Model pages

Gemini 3.8 Flash logo
Gemini 3.8 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