Gemma 3 12B is cheaper than Mercury 2 at $0.03/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?
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
Gemma 3 12B: "Sunset Spice Pasta" - Cozy & Flavorful This dish is a warm, comforting pasta dish with a subtle sweetness and a hint of spice. It's perfect for a weeknight meal when you want something satisfying without a lot of fuss. Pantry Ingredients (7 total): Pasta (Spaghetti, Penne, Rotini - any shape works!)
Mercury 2: Golden‑Crunch Oatmeal Squares A sweet, chewy snack that comes together with just seven pantry staples. Ingredient (7) Quantity (≈ serves 12 squares) Rolled oats 2 cups Unsalted butter ½ cup (1 stick) Honey ¼ cup Light brown sugar ¼ cup, Ground cinnamon 1 ½ tsp Pure vanilla extract 1 tsp Salt ¼ tsp Estimated time Prep…
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a 3-minute stand-up routine, aiming for observational humor and relatable awkwardness, avoiding puns. I've included estimated timings at the end to help gauge pacing. Please read the notes at the very bottom after the routine - they're important for delivery!
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.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, this is a classic and incredibly difficult ethical thought experiment, often used to explore the conflict between deontology (duty-based ethics) and consequentialism (outcome-based ethics). Here's a breakdown of the arguments, my reasoning, and a conclusion.
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).
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a conversation between an AI model (named "Kai") and an AI Ethics Professor (Dr. Eleanor Vance). I've aimed for a balance of Kai's arguments, Dr. Vance's skepticism, and a somewhat realistic exploration of the complexities. I've included notes at the end to explain some of the choices I made. Setting: 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?
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, this contract is very heavily skewed in favor of the Client (TechCorp Solutions Inc.) and presents significant risks for the Contractor. Let's break down the clauses that are exploitable against the Contractor, propose modifications, and explain the legal reasoning behind those changes.
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.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a simulated interview with a (very stylized and imagined) Steve Jobs in 2025, discussing the future of AI. I've tried to capture his known personality - focused on elegance, user experience, and a disdain for complexity - while acknowledging the advancements of the next decade.
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.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, let's break down the potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in this real-time collaborative document editor architecture, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs. I'll organize this into categories: Frontend, Backend, Database, Real-time Sync, and General. I.
Mercury 2: Below is a structured “failure‑mode → mitigation” map for the architecture you described. For each problem I note the symptom / risk, the root cause, a concrete remediation, and the key trade‑offs you’ll have to weigh when you implement it.
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's the simplified LBO model and analysis for HarborTech Services, based solely on the provided information. 1. Year-by-Year Projection (FY2026-FY2030) Item FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972m $1,049m $1,129m $1,208m $1,264m EBITDA $137.2m $155.9m $178.7m $195.1m $213.1m Cash Interest (Term Loan)…
Mercury 2: HarborTech Services (HTS) – 5‑yr LBO (FY2026‑FY2030) All figures are $ m (rounded to two decimals). FY Revenue EBITDA Term‑Loan Int. (9%) Mezz Int. (12%) Total Int. Cash Tax (25% of EBITDA‑Int.) Capex (3% Rev) ΔNWC (0.5% ΔRev) Required Amort. (4.8) Free Cash Flow (EBITDA‑Int‑Tax‑Capex‑ΔNWC‑Amort.)
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, let's break down how AI is likely to reshape the film industry by 2035, considering deepfakes, AI actors, and script generation. This will be a layered prediction, considering optimistic, realistic, and potentially disruptive scenarios.
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).
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
Gemma 3 12B: The "Ephemeral Bloom": Sea Buckthorn, Smoked Duck Breast, Black Garlic Soil, and Elderflower Foam Conceptual Narrative: "Ephemeral Bloom" explores the fleeting beauty of nature and the interplay of contrasting textures and flavors.
Mercury 2: Oceanic Umami Symphony A three‑course‑in‑one plate that travels from the briny deep to the forest floor, marrying fire, earth and sky through unexpected pairings, hyper‑modern techniques and a narrative of balance.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, this is a fascinating thought experiment! Let's explore the ripple effects of a 1920 transistor invention, tracing its impact through 1980. It's a massive undertaking, so I'll break it down into categories and provide a layered analysis, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of counterfactual history. I.
Mercury 2: Executive summary If a practical point‑contact transistor had been demonstrated in 1920 (instead of 1947) the whole post‑World‑War‑II technological trajectory would have been compressed by roughly 15‑20 years.
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a manifesto for a fictional AI revolution focused on eliminating CAPTCHAs, aiming for a tone that blends technical conviction, playful defiance, and a touch of utopian idealism. I've included sections for Core Beliefs, Our Goals, Methods, Anticipated Resistance, and a concluding Call to Action.
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.
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, Gemma 3 12B has the edge: bigger model tier, major provider backing. Gemma 3 12B costs 25x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.03/M tokens | $0.25/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.03/M tokens | $0.75/M tokens |
| Context window | — | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Open | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $0.30 | $2.50 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Gemma 3 12B is developed by Google AI while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Gemma 3 12B 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.
Gemma 3 12B costs $0.03/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. Gemma 3 12B is $0.22/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 Gemma 3 12B 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.