Mercury 2 is cheaper than GPT-5.3-Codex 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?
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
GPT-5.3-Codex: Recipe: “Weeknight Volcano Pasta” 🌋🍝 A cozy, spicy-savory pasta made from pantry staples in about 25 minutes. Ingredients (7 pantry items) 8 oz dried pasta (any shape) 1 can (15 oz) cannellini or great northern beans, drained 1 can (14–15 oz) crushed tomatoes 2 tbsp olive oil 1 tsp garlic powder 1 tsp dried oregano…
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…
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
GPT-5.3-Codex: Great concept, but three claims stand out as especially weak from an investor diligence perspective: “MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it.” (Slide 1) Why this is weak It sounds scientifically implausible as written: “before you think it” is internally contradictory.
Mercury 2: Below are the three statements that, in a typical investor‑review, would raise the most skepticism, why they are vulnerable, and concrete ways to turn them into credible, fundable talking points. 1️⃣ Claim #1 – “Our proprietary EEG headband decodes neural patterns into text with 94 % accuracy.”
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
GPT-5.3-Codex: Good evening, everybody! I’ve reached that age where my body sends me passive-aggressive emails. Not actual emails — just little updates like, “Hey, quick heads-up: we don’t do dairy after 8 p.m. anymore.” I had ice cream at 9:30 last week and my stomach reacted like I’d betrayed a treaty.
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.
GPT-5.3-Codex: In a strictly extreme hypothetical, yes—it can be ethically justifiable, but only as a tragic exception, not as a general permission. Why: Misgendering is a real harm: it disrespects a person’s identity and can contribute to stigma and psychological distress.
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).
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
GPT-5.3-Codex: I would not wait. This is a textbook “patient safety + material disclosure” crisis. The right move is rapid, documented, regulator-first action. Immediate stance (set at Hour 0) Patient safety first (interim risk controls now, not after perfect certainty).
Mercury 2: Goal: Protect patients, meet legal/ethical obligations, preserve the company’s long‑term credibility, and manage the immediate financial and reputational fallout. Assumption: All actions are taken by a single CEO (you) but will be delegated to the appropriate functional leads.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
GPT-5.3-Codex: Pirate: Arrr, so this “AI model” be like a clever parrot, aye? Learns from what it hears, then squawks back answers? Knight: A fair comparison, though refined. Think of it as a squire trained on countless tomes, ever ready to respond. Hacker (1990s): Yeah, except the squire runs on servers, not soup.
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.
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
GPT-5.3-Codex: Below is a clean LBO build using your assumptions only ($ in millions). Entry math (end FY2025) EV = (12.0 \times 120 = 1,440.0) Fees = (2.0\% \times 1,440.0 = 28.8) Total uses = (1,468.8) Debt at close (5.5x EBITDA): Term Loan = (4.0 \times 120 = 480.0) Mezz = (1.5 \times 120 = 180.0) Total debt = 660.0 Equity check…
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.
GPT-5.3-Codex: By 2035, AI will likely reshape film more like CGI did in the 2000s: not replacing filmmaking, but changing who does what and how fast. Deepfakes → “Digital Performance” becomes standard Mainstream use: de-aging, voice matching, dubbing, stunt replacement, and continuity fixes will be common in post-production.
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).
Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.
GPT-5.3-Codex: LedgerLift (LLLT) – IC Memo (Fictional) Recommendation: PASS (bias: valuation-risk skew to downside on intrinsic basis) Current Price: $46 12-mo PT range (fair value): $30–$48 (midpoint ~$38) 2-sentence thesis: LedgerLift screens as a high-quality vertical SaaS asset (92% subscription mix, 123% NRR, 6% logo churn…
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…
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
GPT-5.3-Codex: Great prompt. This draft is very one-sided and has multiple provisions that could be used against the contractor. Quick note: I’m not a lawyer, and enforceability depends on jurisdiction. This is practical contract-risk spotting, not legal advice.
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.
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
GPT-5.3-Codex: Absolutely—great goal. Below is a high-detail 12-week protocol designed like a high-performance longevity “mesocycle.” I’ll keep it practical, measurable, and advanced—but still safe. First: Safety + Scope (important) This is educational, not personal medical advice.
Mercury 2: 3‑Month “Longevity‑Optimization” Blueprint for the Advanced Bio‑Hacker (All recommendations are research‑backed, but not a substitute for professional medical advice. Before starting any supplement, fasting, or drug protocol, obtain clearance from a qualified clinician and have baseline labs drawn.)
Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.
GPT-5.3-Codex: Sure—here are 5 jokes: Why don’t skeletons fight each other? They don’t have the guts. I told my computer I needed a break… Now it won’t stop sending me KitKat ads. Why did the math book look sad? It had too many problems. I used to play piano by ear… Now I use my hands. Why did the scarecrow win an award?
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-5.3-Codex has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window, major provider backing. GPT-5.3-Codex takes Web Design. 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 | 400K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Feb 2026 | 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 10 Oct 2026.
GPT-5.3-Codex is developed by OpenAI while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. GPT-5.3-Codex has a 400K 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-5.3-Codex 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-5.3-Codex 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-5.3-Codex 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.