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. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Grok 4.3vsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Grok 4.3vsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Grok 4.3 at $0.04/M vs $1.25/M input tokens.

Grok 4.3 and Mercury 2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecGrok 4.3Mercury 2.5
Input price$1.25/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$2.5/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens260K tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedMay 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 20 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Grok 4.31,173 words
Technological Acceleration (1920–1939) The transistor’s 1920 invention (assume U.S./Bell Labs context for continuity with real history, with rapid diffusion to Western Europe) replaces bulky, fragile vacuum tubes decades earlier. Key first-order effects: Radio and telephony miniaturize and cheapen immediately.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5660 words
Inventing the transistor in 1920 would have fundamentally reshaped the 20th century, compressing the digital age by roughly two decades. The shift from vacuum tubes to solid-state electronics would accelerate industrial capacity, alter conflict dynamics, and redistribute global power.
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Grok 4.31,529 words
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Contract interpretation varies by jurisdiction (most likely U.S. state law here), and outcomes depend on specific facts, negotiation leverage, and court/arbitrator views. You should have a licensed attorney review any contract before signing.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5501 words
Here is an analysis of the contract clauses that pose significant risk to the contractor, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning. Scope and Compensation (Clause 1) Risk: The client can expand the project indefinitely without paying extra.
Read the full answer

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Grok 4.3379 words
1) Year-by-Year LBO Table (FY2026–FY2030, $m) FY2026 Revenue: 972 EBITDA: 136.08 Term cash interest: 43.2 (9% × 480) Mezz cash interest: 21.6 (12% × 180) Cash taxes: 17.82 (25% × (136.08 – 64.8)) Capex: 29.16 ΔNWC: 0.36 FCF after debt service (after mandatory amort): 19.14 Ending Term Loan: 456.06 Ending Mezz…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5403 words
1. Simplified Year-by-Year LBO Model (FY2026–FY2030) Entry Assumptions: Enterprise Value (EV): $120m × 12.0x = $1,440m Transaction Fees: $1,440m × 2.0% = $28.8m Total Debt at Close: $120m × 5.5x = $660m Term Loan: $120m × 4.0x = $480m Mezzanine: $120m × 1.5x = $180m Equity Required: $1,440m (EV) + $28.8m (Fees) − $660m…
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Grok 4.3500 words
The three weakest claims are: Solution: "94% accuracy" decoding neural patterns into text with a non-invasive EEG headband Why it's weak: This is the most technically dubious claim. Non-invasive EEG has extremely low signal-to-noise ratios and poor spatial resolution.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5544 words
Based on the pitch deck summary, here are the three weakest claims, along with an analysis of their vulnerabilities and concrete suggestions for improvement. The "Pre-Thought" Prediction Claim Claim: "MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it."
Read the full answer

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

Grok 4.3937 words
Abyssal Reverie This dish draws from the liminal space where the ocean’s briny depths meet the roasted intensity of the earth. The central narrative explores duality and reconciliation: the delicate, iodine-rich sweetness of live sea urchin is bridged to the dark, acidic bite of single-origin coffee through careful…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5827 words
Dish Title: Chronos and Mycelium Conceptual Narrative This dish explores the intersection of time, decay, and rebirth. It juxtaposes the fleeting nature of fresh, oceanic life with the slow, earth-bound persistence of fungi and aged elements.
Read the full answer

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

Grok 4.3630 words
Disclaimer: This is an informational, evidence-inspired framework for educational purposes only. It is not medical advice. Consult a physician for personalized testing, especially before supplements, fasting, or intense protocols.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5610 words
3-Month Biohacking Longevity & Performance Plan Disclaimer: I am an AI, not a physician or certified health professional. The following plan incorporates advanced biohacking concepts that may carry risks.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Mercury 2.5 costs 17x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Grok 4.3
Input
$1.25
Output
$2.50
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
31× cheaper
Output
$0.15
17× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 31× input, 17× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

Grok 4.31 host
HostInOutContextUptime
xAI$1.25 in·$2.50 out·1M·99.8% up
Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Grok 4.3 is developed by xAI while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Grok 4.3 has a 1.0M token context window vs Mercury 2.5's 260K. You can compare their actual outputs across 20 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Grok 4.3 and Mercury 2.5 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 20 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Grok 4.3 costs $1.25/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $1.21/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 Grok 4.3 and Mercury 2.5 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.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Grok 4.3 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Grok 4.3 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Grok 4.3 logoHy3 logo
Grok 4.3 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Grok 4.3 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Grok 4.3 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Grok 4.3 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Grok 4.3 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Grok 4.3 logoGrok 4.7 logo
Grok 4.3 vs Grok 4.7Same lab
Grok 4.3 logoGrok 4.6 logo
Grok 4.3 vs Grok 4.6Same lab
Mercury 2.5 logoMercury 2.5 Preview logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mercury 2.5 PreviewSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoMercury logo
Mercury 2.5 vs MercurySame lab
Grok 4.3 logoNemotron 3.5 Lightning logo
Grok 4.3 vs Nemotron 3.5 LightningNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoNVIDIA Nemotron Nano 9B V2 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs NVIDIA Nemotron Nano 9B V2New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoNex-N2.5-Mini (free) logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Nex-N2.5-Mini (free)Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoNex-N2.5-Pro (free) logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)Same size

Model pages

Grok 4.3 logo
Grok 4.358 outputs, specs and price
Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
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