Mercury 2 is cheaper than GPT-5.4 Pro at $0.25/M vs $30/M input tokens.
Playable Mario level in one HTML file. The physics is the hard part.
Which answer wins?
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
GPT-5.4 Pro: Dragon Pantry Peanut Noodles A fast, sweet-savory noodle dish made from 7 pantry staples. Ingredients 8 oz spaghetti 1/3 cup peanut butter 3 tbsp soy sauce 1 tbsp honey 1 tbsp vegetable oil 1 tsp garlic powder 1/4 tsp red pepper flakes Water for boiling/thinning the sauce doesn’t count.
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…
Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.
GPT-5.4 Pro: LedgerLift (LLLT) — IC Memo Recommendation: Pass 12-month PT range: $40–$47 2-sentence thesis: LedgerLift looks like a good business but only an average stock here: retention is strong (94% GRR, 123% NRR), the model is mostly subscription, and margins are inflecting, but at $46 the shares already discount a lot of the…
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 pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
GPT-5.4 Pro: The 3 weakest claims are the ones that are both most extraordinary and least well-supported. Weak claim Why it’s weak How to strengthen it 1) “MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it.” This is the biggest credibility risk in the deck.
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.”
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
GPT-5.4 Pro: This architecture will work for a demo, but it has major correctness, latency, and security problems for a Google-Docs-like editor. Highest-risk flaws Client-clock last-write-wins will lose edits and can be gamed by bad clocks.
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-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
GPT-5.4 Pro: Below is a 12-week, high-performance longevity protocol designed for a healthy biohacker who wants to improve lifespan-relevant markers, physical performance, and cognitive output at the same time. Use it as a data-driven template, not dogma.
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 Pro: Below is a simplified LBO build for HarborTech Services (HTS). All figures in $m unless noted. Rounding: tables are rounded; IRR/MOIC use unrounded math. Entry / Sources & Uses FY2025 EBITDA: 120.0 Purchase price: 12.0x EBITDA → Enterprise value = 12.0 × 120.0 = 1,440.0 Transaction fees: 2.0% of EV → 28.8 Total uses =…
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.)
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
GPT-5.4 Pro: I do not wait. A credible, previously unlabeled risk of liver failure in a chronic-pain drug is a patient-safety crisis, a regulatory crisis, and a securities-disclosure issue at the same time.
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 Pro: Below is a dish designed in the language of a contemporary 3-star tasting menu: precise, seasonal, technically layered, and centered on a pairing that feels surprising at first, then inevitable.
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.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
GPT-5.4 Pro: This agreement is heavily client-favored. Every numbered clause has language that could be used against the contractor. Short version: I would not sign it without major redlines to Clauses 1–9, especially 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Below is a clause-by-clause review.
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.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
GPT-5.4 Pro: Most likely, a transistor invented in 1920 would move the electronics/computing frontier forward by about 10–15 years by 1980, not the full 27 years. Reason: the transistor alone is not enough; you also need high-purity materials, crystal growth, photolithography, test equipment, software, batteries, precision…
Mercury 2: Executive summary If a practical point‑contact transistor had been demonstrated in 1920 (instead of 1947) the whole post‑World‑War‑II technological trajectory would have been compressed by roughly 15‑20 years.
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
GPT-5.4 Pro: For an experienced software engineer Think of an LLM less like a database of facts and more like a gigantic learned program that has been trained to compress the patterns of text, code, and conversations into its weights.
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}).
One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.
GPT-5.4 Pro: Here’s a simple, beginner-friendly 1-month health and longevity plan built around 3 key areas: Nutrition Movement Recovery (sleep + stress) The goal is consistency, not perfection. Start small and make the habits easy enough to keep.
Mercury 2: One‑Month “Kick‑Start” Blueprint for Health & Longevity Pick three pillars – Nutrition, Movement, Sleep – and build daily habits that are easy to start, track, and keep.
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window, major provider backing. Mercury 2 costs 240x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $30/M tokens | $0.25/M tokens |
| Output price | $180/M tokens | $0.75/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.1M tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2026 | Mar 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $300 | $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 Pro is developed by OpenAI while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. GPT-5.4 Pro has a 1.1M token context window vs Mercury 2's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 18 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. GPT-5.4 Pro and Mercury 2 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 18 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
GPT-5.4 Pro costs $30/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. Mercury 2 is $29.75/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 Pro 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.