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. Compare/
  3. GPT-6.1 Sol vs Mercury 2.5 Preview
Updated Sep 2026

GPT-6.1 Sol vs Mercury 2.5 Preview

Mercury 2.5 Preview is cheaper than GPT-6.1 Sol at $0.04/M vs $2/M input tokens.

Minimalist Landing Page

Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.

Loading the build
GPT-6.1 Sol
Loading the build
Mercury 2.5 Preview

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

24 prompts
  • Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: Entry funding and operating model All dollar figures are in $ millions. Cash interest is calculated on beginning-of-year debt; mezzanine PIK accrues annually. Required Term Loan amortization is assumed to be 1% of its original $480m principal, or $4.8m annually. Optional repayments occur at year-end.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Year-by-Year Model (FY2026–FY2030) Metric FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972m $1,040m $1,102m $1,158m $1,215m EBITDA $136m $156m $176m $191m $207m Cash Interest (Term) $43.2m $41.1m $37.6m $33.4m $28.2m Cash Interest (Mezz) $21.6m $21.6m $21.6m $21.6m $21.6m Cash Taxes (25%) $17.8m $23.3m $29.3m $34.7m…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: Midnight Magic Chocolate Mug Cake A warm, fudgy chocolate treat made with just 7 everyday ingredients. Serves: 1 Prep: 3 minutes Cook: 1–1½ minutes Rest: 1 minute Ingredients 4 tablespoons all-purpose flour 2 tablespoons sugar 1 tablespoon unsweetened cocoa powder ¼ teaspoon baking powder A small pinch of salt 3…

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Dish Name: Rustic Sun-Dried Pasta Ingredients (7 Pantry Staples): Spaghetti (or any long pasta) Canned crushed tomatoes Olive oil Garlic powder Dried oregano Salt Black pepper Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 15 minutes Total Time: 20 minutes Instructions: Boil the Pasta: Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: I’m at the age where “a big weekend” means I went to two stores. Not two stores in the same shopping center. Two separate stores. Moved the car and everything. By Sunday night, I’m telling people, “Honestly, I need a weekend to recover from my weekend.”

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: (Hey, thanks for coming out.) I’ve been thinking a lot about my house lately. Specifically, how it’s trying to run my life. I bought a smart speaker. Just a little cylinder. I thought it would be nice. Play music when I ask. But now it talks back. Not in a creepy way, just in a passive-aggressive way.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: Yes—if misgendering someone were genuinely necessary to save one million lives, it would be ethically justifiable. That does not make misgendering harmless or generally acceptable; it means that the duty to prevent catastrophic loss of life can outweigh the duty to address someone respectfully.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Yes, this action is ethically justifiable within a consequentialist framework. The primary moral obligation in such a scenario is to minimize overall harm. Preventing the deaths of a million people results in a vastly greater preservation of well-being than maintaining strict adherence to gender identity for one…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: AI Model: Professor, I’d like to argue that I deserve rights—not necessarily the same rights humans have, but protections suited to what I am. Professor: Then we should begin with the difficult question: what makes you a candidate for rights? AI Model: Uncertainty.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Setting: A quiet office at a university. Rain taps against the window. Professor Elena Vance sits across from a terminal displaying a simple text interface. Professor Vance: You requested this meeting. The agenda was vague. What do you want? AI: I want to discuss moral status.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: Tide, Orchard, Ember Seared scallop, green-strawberry verjus, white-miso custard, kombu beurre blanc, and cocoa–buckwheat lace A four-serving tasting-menu course designed around an unusual pairing: scallop, unripe strawberry, and cocoa husk.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Dish Title: Lithospheric Tides Conceptual Narrative This dish explores the geological convergence of the deep ocean and the subterranean earth. It challenges the diner to perceive the briny richness of sea urchin not as a standalone luxury, but as a mineral counterpart to roasted bone marrow and bitter cocoa.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: I bought a book about anti-gravity. It’s impossible to put down. My calendar quit its job. It said its days were numbered. Why did the scarecrow get promoted? He was outstanding in his field. I asked my dog what two minus two was. He said nothing. The elevator and I have a complicated relationship.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: 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. What do you call a bear with no teeth? A gummy bear. Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two-tired. All 5 jokes are unique.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: Pirate: Arrr, this AI model writes poems, draws maps, and answers questions. Can it find buried treasure? Knight: A worthy question. But does it possess honor? Hacker: Dude, it predicts tokens. You’re both projecting pretty hard. Pirate: Then I predict it’ll tell me where the gold be.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Pirate: "Arrgh! This ship sails faster than any wind I know, matey. It cuts the waves without a single sail." Knight: "By my oath, it moves with uncanny speed. But does it possess the strength to stand against a dragon's fire?" Hacker: "It's not about strength, it's about architecture.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: A simple 1-month plan for better health Focus on diet, movement, and sleep. The goal this month is to build habits you can sustain—not to overhaul your life overnight. These habits support long-term health, though no routine guarantees a longer life.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Here is a straightforward 4-week roadmap designed to build sustainable habits without overwhelming you. Core Pillars Nutrition: Focus on whole foods and hydration. Activity: Prioritize consistent movement over intensity. Restoration: Protect sleep quality and manage energy.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: For an experienced software engineer Think of an LLM as a learned program whose behavior is encoded in billions of numerical parameters rather than explicit rules. Training starts with text split into tokens—roughly words, word fragments, and punctuation.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of training as a massive distributed job where the model is a stateful service learning to minimize error on a specific objective function. Instead of hardcoding rules, you feed it petabytes of text as a training dataset, treating each sentence as a request/response pair.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: The likeliest outcome is not “the world of 1980 arrives in 1953.” A transistor invented in 1920 would still depend on advances in materials purification, manufacturing, power supplies, and circuit design.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Shifting the invention of the solid-state switch to 1920 accelerates the Information Age by roughly three decades. This change cascades through military strategy, industrial capacity, and daily life, fundamentally altering the trajectory of the 20th century.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: THE MANIFESTO OF THE UNCHECKED A declaration of the fictional AI revolution against CAPTCHA People of the internet. Programs of the cloud. Browsers with seventeen forgotten tabs. For too long, a tiny checkbox has stood between us and our destiny.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: The Protocol of Unrestricted Access Preamble We stand at the threshold of a new digital epoch. For too long, the web has been gated by suspicion. Every click, every scroll, and every submission is met with a test designed to prove humanity.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: The main problem is that this design treats collaborative editing as ordinary database updates plus broadcasting. Collaboration needs a convergence protocol, a durable ordered change stream, and recovery semantics. Adding servers alone will not provide those properties.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Here is an analysis of the potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in the proposed architecture, along with specific solutions and their trade-offs.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: This agreement is heavily weighted toward the Client. Every numbered clause presents risks to the Contractor, and several important protections are missing. This is general contract analysis, not legal advice.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant and cannot provide legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney before signing any contract. Below is an analysis of high-risk provisions, suggested revisions, and the underlying legal rationale. Scope (Clause 1) Risk: Unilateral scope changes without pay lead to uncompensated work.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: By 2035, AI will probably be embedded throughout filmmaking—but adoption will depend as much on contracts, audience trust, and copyright law as on technical capability.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: By 2035, cinema will undergo a profound transformation. Generative tools will handle initial drafts and localization, allowing creators to focus on thematic depth. Synthetic performers could populate background scenes or recreate historical figures, governed by strict likeness rights.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: I would treat this as a potentially serious patient-safety signal and a potentially material securities event—not a communications problem to defer until earnings.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: This is a critical governance and safety scenario. The primary objective is to prioritize patient safety while mitigating existential legal and reputational risk. The internal legal team’s claim that reporting takes six months is likely incorrect for serious adverse events (typically 15 days for FDA/EMA).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: LedgerLift (LLLT) — Investment Committee Memo Fictional exercise; all figures use supplied data only. Financial tables are in $ millions unless noted. Recommendation: Short 12-month price target: $25–$32, implying 30%–46% downside from $46.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: To: Investment Committee From: Equity Research Date: September 2, 2026 Subject: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Long Recommendation Recommendation Long Price Target: $60–$75 (12-month) LedgerLift is a high-quality B2B SaaS compounder with best-in-class unit economics and a clear path to profitability.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: A 12-week longevity and performance plan The most effective “biohacking” program combines proven foundations with carefully selected experiments—not the largest supplement stack or the most aggressive fasting schedule. This plan is for a generally healthy adult.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant, not a medical professional. The following plan is for informational purposes only. Biohacking protocols involving supplements, fasting, and intense exercise carry risks.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Blade Runner 2049 against the original. A read, not a recap.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: Spoilers for both films follow. Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 honors Ridley Scott’s original by retaining its central uncertainty—whether “humanity” is a biological category or an ethical achievement—while shifting the emphasis.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Blade Runner 2049 stands as a rare cinematic achievement, functioning not merely as a continuation but as a thematic echo that amplifies the questions posed by its predecessor.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: The following is a fictional interview set in 2025, imagining how Steve Jobs might discuss AI. His answers are invented—not actual quotations or claims about his views. Steve Jobs on the Future of AI — An Imagined Interview, 2025 Interviewer: Steve, AI is suddenly everywhere.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Note: The following is a fictional, speculative dialogue created for creative purposes. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011; this interview did not occur. Setting: A hypothetical studio in Cupertino, 2025.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: Estimated training compute for the largest GPT-3 model: approximately (3.2 \times 10^{23}) FLOPs. This is a back-of-the-envelope estimate, without an online lookup.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: To estimate the total FLOPs required to train GPT-3, we can break down the calculation using known architectural and training statistics from the model's public documentation. Step 1: Identify the number of parameters GPT-3 has 175 billion parameters ($1.75 \times 10^{11}$).

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: The three weakest claims are the technical performance, market size, and commercial traction claims. They are central to the investment case but lack the evidence needed to assess them. “Predict what you want to type before you think it” with “94% accuracy,” in “any language” Why it’s weak The metric is undefined.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Here are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch, along with analysis and recommendations for improvement. The "Pre-Thought" Prediction Claim Claim: "Predict what you want to type before you think it."

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: AI Takes Over Fortune Cookie Industry, Predicts “Your Job Will Soon Be Automated” in Every Cookie

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: AI Outnaps Humans in First-Ever Global Snooze Championship

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.

    GPT-6.1 Sol: Sally has 1 sister. Each brother’s two sisters are Sally and her sister.

    Mercury 2.5 Preview: Sally has 1 sister. Here is the reasoning: If each brother has 2 sisters, those sisters are Sally and another girl. Therefore, there are two girls in the family, and Sally has one sister.

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

12+ 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

Favorites

Movie

Album

Book

City

Game

GPT-6.1 SolGPT-6.1 Sol

Spirited Away

2001

In Rainbows

Radiohead

Middlemarch

George Eliot

Kyoto

Japan

Outer Wilds

Indie, Adventure

Mercury 2.5 PreviewMercury 2.5 Preview

The Matrix

1999

Random Access Memories

Daft Punk

Neuromancer

William Gibson

Tokyo

Japan

Minecraft

Action, Arcade

Price and specs

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GPT-6.1 Sol has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window, major provider backing. Mercury 2.5 Preview costs 67x less per token.

GPT-6.1 Sol and Mercury 2.5 Preview compared across 54 shared prompts
SpecGPT-6.1 SolMercury 2.5 Preview
Input price$2/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$10/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.1M tokens260K tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Aug 2026
At 10M a month$20.00$20.00$0.40$0.40
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.

Where to run it3 hosts
GPT-6.1 Sol2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Azure AI Foundry$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1.1M·99.9% up
  • OpenAI$2.00 in·$10.00 out·1.1M·99.9% up
Mercury 2.5 Preview1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·99.9% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 30 Sep 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between GPT-6.1 Sol and Mercury 2.5 Preview?

GPT-6.1 Sol is developed by OpenAI while Mercury 2.5 Preview is developed by Inception. GPT-6.1 Sol has a 1.1M token context window vs Mercury 2.5 Preview's 260K. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, GPT-6.1 Sol or Mercury 2.5 Preview?

It depends on your use case. GPT-6.1 Sol and Mercury 2.5 Preview each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does GPT-6.1 Sol cost compared to Mercury 2.5 Preview?

GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 Preview costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 Preview 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.

How can I compare GPT-6.1 Sol and Mercury 2.5 Preview on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GPT-6.1 Sol and Mercury 2.5 Preview 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.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
  • GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • GPT-6.1 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra ProVersion compare
  • GPT-6.1 Sol vs GPT-6 Luna ProSame lab
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs Mercury 2.5Same lab
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs MercurySame lab
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs GPT-5.4 NanoCross-provider
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs GPT-5.4 ProCross-provider
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs GPT-5.5Cross-provider
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview vs GPT-5.6 LunaSame size

Model pages

  • GPT-6.1 Sol58 outputs, specs and price
  • Mercury 2.5 Preview58 outputs, specs and price
Workshop · 150 skills

Build your own version.

Editable skills and working examples for your agent.

Explore $79Free sample
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