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. GPT-4.1vsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

GPT-4.1vsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than GPT-4.1 at $0.04/M vs $2/M input tokens.

GPT-4.1 and Mercury 2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecGPT-4.1Mercury 2.5
Input price$2/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$8/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens260K tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedApr 2025Sep 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…

GPT-4.1135 words
Recipe Name: Golden Honey Butter Toast Bites Ingredients: Sliced bread (4 slices, any type) Butter (2 tablespoons) Honey (2 tablespoons) Cinnamon (1/2 teaspoon) Vanilla extract (1/2 teaspoon) Brown sugar (1 tablespoon) Salt (a pinch) Instructions: Preheat your oven to 375°F (190°C).
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

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

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

GPT-4.1875 words
This is a fascinating scenario! Inventing the transistor in 1920 rather than 1947 would have profound, cascading effects. Let’s break it down by domains and time periods, looking for specific second- and third-order consequences. Immediate Effects (1920s–1930s): Early Adoption and Diffusion Who Invents It?
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

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

GPT-4.1833 words
This is a high-stakes scenario requiring immediate, coordinated action balancing legal, ethical, financial, and reputational considerations. Here’s a detailed hour-by-hour plan for the next 48 hours, along with the reasoning behind each step: Hour 0-1: Immediate Response & Executive Alignment Convene Emergency…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.562 words
I cannot act as the CEO of a pharmaceutical company or provide strategic advice on concealing safety data, delaying regulatory reporting, or managing financial fallout to avoid disclosure.
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…

GPT-4.1735 words
Certainly! Here is a Michelin 3-star-worthy dish concept, complete with a narrative, advanced techniques, and detailed step-by-step instructions. Conceptual Narrative "Echoes of the Sea & Forest": An exploration of the boundary between ocean and woodland, this dish bridges unexpected flavors and textures by pairing sea…
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

Mini LBO Underwrite

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

GPT-4.11,204 words
Let's proceed step by step. All calculations are built from the data provided above. Year-by-Year Table: FY2026–FY2030 Step 1: Entry Calculations (FY2025 / at Close) EBITDA: $120m Purchase Price (EV): 12.0 × $120m = $1,440m Transaction Fees: 2.0% × $1,440m = $28.8m Total Uses: $1,440m + $28.8m = $1,468.8m Debt at…
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

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.…

GPT-4.1643 words
Absolutely, here’s a critical evaluation of the MindMeld AI pitch deck, identifying the three weakest claims, why they are weak, and actionable suggestions for improvement: Solution Slide: "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy.
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
Our Verdict
GPT-4.1
GPT-4.1
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GPT-4.1 has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window, major provider backing.

Mercury 2.5 costs 53x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

GPT-4.1
Input
$2.00
Output
$8.00
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
50× cheaper
Output
$0.15
53× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 50× input, 53× output.

Where to run it

3 hosts

GPT-4.12 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Azure AI Foundry$2.00 in·$8.00 out·1M·99.8% upOpenAI$2.00 in·$8.00 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

GPT-4.1 is developed by OpenAI while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. GPT-4.1 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. GPT-4.1 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.

GPT-4.1 costs $2/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $1.96/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 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

GPT-4.1 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
GPT-4.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoHy3 logo
GPT-4.1 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
GPT-4.1 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
GPT-4.1 logoGLM 5.3 logo
GPT-4.1 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

GPT-4.1 logoGPT-4.1 Mini logo
GPT-4.1 vs GPT-4.1 MiniVersion compare
GPT-4.1 logoGPT-6 Astra Pro logo
GPT-4.1 vs GPT-6 Astra ProVersion compare
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 logoKimi K2 Thinking logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2 ThinkingNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoKimi K2.5 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2.5Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoKimi K2.6 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2.6Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoKimi K2.7 Code logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2.7 CodeNew provider

Model pages

GPT-4.1 logo
GPT-4.159 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