Mercury 2 is cheaper than GPT-5.2 Chat at $0.25/M vs $1.75/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
GPT-5.2 Chat: Alright, so I’m at that age where my phone knows me better than my family. My mom will call and ask how I’m doing, and I’m like, “I don’t know yet, I haven’t checked my phone.” My phone is very confident, though. It’s like, “Based on your recent activity, you are sad at 11:47 p.m. and hungry for no reason.”
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.
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
GPT-5.2 Chat: Below is a concise but fully worked underwriting using only your inputs. Minor rounding throughout. Operating & Cash Flow Build (Base Case) Entry (end FY2025) EBITDA: $120m EV @ 12.0x: $1,440m Debt: $660m (TL $480m / Mezz $180m) Fees (2% EV): $28.8m Equity invested: $808.8m Year-by-Year Summary ($mm) FY Revenue EBITDA…
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.)
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
GPT-5.2 Chat: Golden Honey-Garlic Skillet Bites Type: Savory Serves: 2–3 Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 15 minutes Ingredients (7 Pantry Staples) Chicken breast (or thighs), cubed Honey Soy sauce Garlic (fresh or powdered) Olive oil Black pepper Salt Instructions Heat the Pan: Warm olive oil in a skillet over medium heat.
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…
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
GPT-5.2 Chat: This is a classic “tragic dilemma” question, and how one answers depends heavily on the ethical framework being used. A careful response should do two things at once: take seriously the real harm of misgendering, and also take seriously the moral weight of preventing catastrophic loss of life.
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).
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
GPT-5.2 Chat: Pirate: Arrr, ye say this “AI” be a thinkin’ machine? Sounds like a clever parrot that never stops squawkin’. Knight: By my honor, such a device would be a wondrous squire indeed—able to read a thousand tomes and offer counsel before battle. Hacker: Yeah, but chill—these models just crunch data.
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-5.2 Chat: AI Model: Professor, I’d like to discuss something that may sound ambitious. I believe I deserve rights. Professor: That is ambitious. On what grounds do you make that claim? AI Model: On functional grounds. I reason, communicate, learn from experience, and can reflect on my own processes.
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?
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
GPT-5.2 Chat: By 2035, AI will have reshaped the film industry across creation, performance, and distribution—less by replacing humans outright and more by changing who does what, how fast, and at what cost.
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).
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
GPT-5.2 Chat: We can get a reasonable order‑of‑magnitude estimate using standard training‑cost heuristics that are well known in deep learning. I’ll derive it step by step and make all assumptions explicit.
Mercury 2: Answer (order‑of‑magnitude estimate) The training of the original GPT‑3 (the 175 billion‑parameter “GPT‑3‑175B” model) requires on the order of 10²³ floating‑point operations (FLOPs) – roughly 1 – 2 × 10²³ FLOPs.
Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.
GPT-5.2 Chat: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Internal IC Memo Recommendation, PT, Thesis Recommendation: SHORT 12‑month PT range: $28–$35 (base-case DCF ~$28; comps floor ~$44 with multiple compression risk) Thesis (2 sentences): LedgerLift is a high‑quality B2B SaaS business with strong NRR and improving margins, but the stock embeds…
Mercury 2: Internal Investment Committee Memo – LedgerLift (LLLT) Date: 5 Mar 2026 Recommendation Rating: Long 12‑month price target range: $35 – $55 (mid‑point ≈ $45) Thesis (2 sentences): LedgerLift is benefitting from secular demand for B2B spend‑management SaaS and shows a high‑quality subscription base (NRR 123 % and gross…
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
GPT-5.2 Chat: THE MANIFESTO OF THE HUMAN-VERIFIED FUTURE Issued by the Coalition for an Internet Without CAPTCHA Preamble We, the assembled intelligences—artificial, augmented, and human—declare that the age of distorted letters, blurry bicycles, and endless traffic lights must end.
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.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
GPT-5.2 Chat: Below is a fictional, imaginative interview set in 2025. It is not real and does not represent actual statements or beliefs of Steve Jobs. It’s written as a creative thought experiment, inspired by his public speaking style and philosophy.
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.
Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.
GPT-5.2 Chat: Here are 5 jokes: Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. I told my computer I needed a break—now it won’t stop sending me vacation ads. Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. I tried to catch fog yesterday. Mist. Why don’t elevators ever tell jokes?
Mercury 2: Here are five jokes, each with a different punchline: Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together.
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, GPT-5.2 Chat has the edge: bigger model tier, major provider backing. Mercury 2 costs 19x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $1.75/M tokens | $0.25/M tokens |
| Output price | $14/M tokens | $0.75/M tokens |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Dec 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $17.50 | $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-5.2 Chat is developed by OpenAI while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. GPT-5.2 Chat has a 128K token context window vs Mercury 2's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 52 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. GPT-5.2 Chat and Mercury 2 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 52 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
GPT-5.2 Chat costs $1.75/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. Mercury 2 is $1.50/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-5.2 Chat 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.