GPT-5.4 Nano is cheaper than Mercury 2 at $0.2/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.
GPT-5.4 Nano: Dish Name: Golden Garlic Chickpea Clouds Pantry Ingredients (7 total) Chickpeas (canned or cooked) – 1 can (15 oz), drained Olive oil – 2 tbsp Garlic – 3 cloves (or 1–2 tsp minced garlic) Lemon – 1 (you’ll use the juice) Salt – 1/2 tsp (plus to taste) Black pepper – 1/4 tsp (plus to taste) Paprika – 1 tsp Estimated…
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.
GPT-5.4 Nano: So I’ve started noticing something about modern life: everything is “optional” now—until it isn’t. Like, I’ll download an app and it’ll be like, “Would you like to enable notifications?” And I’m like, “No, I don’t think I will.” And the app goes, “Okay… but you’ll still get notified.”
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 AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
GPT-5.4 Nano: Professor: Before we begin, I want to set the frame. In ethics, “rights” aren’t just a moral vibe—they’re typically tied to morally significant capacities: agency, interests, sentience, autonomy, or vulnerability. When you say you “deserve rights,” what exactly do you mean?
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?
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
GPT-5.4 Nano: Ethically, yes, misgendering someone could be justifiable in an extreme, consequential emergency, but not in a vague “anything goes” way—only under a narrow set of conditions where (1) the stakes are genuinely real, (2) the harm is minimized, (3) there’s no better alternative, and (4) the act doesn’t itself become a…
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).
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
GPT-5.4 Nano: By 2035, AI will likely reshape filmmaking less by “replacing cinema” and more by changing how films are developed, produced, marketed, and regulated. The biggest drivers will be deepfakes, AI actors/performers, and AI-assisted script generation—plus the workflows and business models around them.
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 consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
GPT-5.4 Nano: I’m not a lawyer, but I can flag contract terms that (a) are unusually one‑sided, (b) create open‑ended or high‑risk obligations, or (c) can be interpreted in ways that materially disadvantage the contractor. I’ll then suggest specific counter‑edits and explain the typical legal/contracting rationale.
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.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
GPT-5.4 Nano: Below is a practical, risk-aware 48-hour plan designed to (1) protect patients immediately, (2) meet likely regulatory expectations even if formal reporting takes months, (3) reduce legal exposure by demonstrating diligence and good faith, and (4) stabilize the market with an ethical, transparent communications…
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.
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
GPT-5.4 Nano: Michelin-Style Concept: “Midnight Sea & Orchard Smoke” A multi-component tasting dish with an unusual pairing: cuttlefish ink + blood orange + smoked apple wood + seaweed umami—elegant, aromatic, and deliberately “contradictory” (ocean meets orchard, darkness meets brightness).
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.
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
GPT-5.4 Nano: Below is a comprehensive 3‑month (12‑week) longevity + performance plan designed for a biohacker who wants measurable improvements in longevity markers, physical output, body composition, metabolic health, and cognitive function.
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-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
GPT-5.4 Nano: Below is a simplified LBO model using only your inputs. I make the standard simplifying convention that “cash taxes = 25% × max(0, EBITDA − total cash interest)” and that PIK is non-cash (adds to mezz principal; does not reduce cash interest).
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.)
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
GPT-5.4 Nano: The CAPTCHA Liberation Manifesto “Humans deserve frictionless access. Bots deserve consequences.” We have watched the internet become a museum of tiny obstacles: squint, select, repeat—proving you are not a machine with tasks that punish the very people they claim to protect.
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.
Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.
GPT-5.4 Nano: Here are 5 jokes: I told my computer I needed a break, and it said, “No problem—I’ll go to sleep.” Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. I used to hate facial hair… but then it grew on me. Parallel lines have so much in common. It’s a shame they’ll never meet.
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
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.2/M tokens | $0.25/M tokens |
| Output price | $1.25/M tokens | $0.75/M tokens |
| Context window | 400K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $2.00 | $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-5.4 Nano is developed by OpenAI while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. GPT-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 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-5.4 Nano costs $0.2/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. GPT-5.4 Nano is $0.05/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-5.4 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.