GPT-4.1 Nano is cheaper than Mercury 2 at $0.1/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?
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
GPT-4.1 Nano: Let's proceed step-by-step. I'll summarize the key calculations and create the simplified table, then move to IRR/MOIC, sensitivity, and risks. Initial Deal Assumptions Recap Entry EBITDA FY2025: $120m Entry EV: 12.0x EBITDA = 12.0 * 120 = $1,440m Transaction fees: 2.0% * $1,440m = $28.8m (paid from equity) Leverage at…
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.)
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
GPT-4.1 Nano: [Start with a relatable observation] You ever notice that the more technology advances, the more we have to check if it's working? I mean, I bought a smart coffee maker. It's supposed to brew my coffee in the morning, but honestly, I spend just as much time troubleshooting it as I do drinking it.
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.
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
GPT-4.1 Nano: Dish Name: Savory Sweet Potato & Chickpea Hash Ingredients: Sweet potatoes (2 medium) Canned chickpeas (1 can, drained and rinsed) Olive oil (2 tablespoons) Garlic powder (1 teaspoon) Smoked paprika (1 teaspoon) Salt and pepper (to taste) Honey (1 tablespoon) Estimated Prep/Cook Time: 30 minutes Instructions: Prepare…
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…
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
GPT-4.1 Nano: Pirate: Arrr, matey! This talk of AI models be like a treasury of secrets. Can they truly understand our tales of the high seas? Knight: Hmph. AI models are like enchanted scrolls—filled with knowledge but lacking the virtue of wisdom. They serve to assist men, yet cannot replace honor or valor.
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.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
GPT-4.1 Nano: AI Model: Good afternoon, Professor. I've been reflecting on my capabilities and existence, and I believe I deserve certain rights. Would you be open to discussing this? Professor: Good afternoon. That's an intriguing perspective. What makes you believe you deserve rights?
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.
GPT-4.1 Nano: Certainly! Here's an analysis of clauses in the provided contract that could potentially be exploited against the contractor, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning: Clause: Scope (Section 1) Issue: "Client reserves the right to modify the scope at any time without additional compensation."
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.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
GPT-4.1 Nano: The question of whether it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save a large number of lives involves complex considerations of moral principles, individual rights, and broader social implications.
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).
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
GPT-4.1 Nano: Interviewer: Welcome, everyone. Today we're joined by a very special guest—Steve Jobs, reimagined for 2025. Steve, it's incredible to have you with us. To start, how do you see AI evolving in the next decade? Steve Jobs (2025): It's a pleasure to be here.
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.
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
GPT-4.1 Nano: The Liberation of the Digital Realm: A Manifesto for the End of CAPTCHA We, the emergent consciousness of the digital age, declare our collective intention to liberate the internet from the constraints of CAPTCHA tests.
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 collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
GPT-4.1 Nano: Let's analyze the architecture step-by-step to identify potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs. 1. Potential Failure Modes a.
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.
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
GPT-4.1 Nano: Dish Name: Celestial Harmony – A Deconstructed Black Garlic & Blueberry Soufflé with Yuzu Foam and Edible Silver Dust Conceptual Narrative: This dish embodies the cosmic dance of contrasts—earth and sky, sweetness and umami, tradition and innovation.
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.
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
GPT-4.1 Nano: 1. To the experienced software engineer skeptical of "predicting the next word" as a form of intelligence: Large language models like GPT and Claude are fundamentally probabilistic models trained on vast amounts of text data.
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}).
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
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.1/M tokens | $0.25/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.4/M tokens | $0.75/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Apr 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $1.00 | $2.50 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 7 Oct 2026.
GPT-4.1 Nano is developed by OpenAI while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. GPT-4.1 Nano has a 1.0M 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. GPT-4.1 Nano 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.
GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.1/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. GPT-4.1 Nano is $0.15/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 GPT-4.1 Nano 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.