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. Hy3vsMercury 2
Updated Jul 2026

Hy3vsMercury 2

Hy3 is cheaper than Mercury 2 at $0.132/M vs $0.25/M input tokens.

Hy3 and Mercury 2 compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecHy3Mercury 2
Input price$0.132/M tokens$0.25/M tokens
Output price$0.528/M tokens$0.75/M tokens
Context window262K tokens128K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedJul 2026Mar 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 14 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Hy3178 words
Dish Name: Ruby Hurricane Pasta Ingredients (exactly 7 common pantry staples): Spaghetti (or any dry pasta) Canned diced tomatoes Garlic (pre-minced or whole cloves) Extra-virgin olive oil Red pepper flakes Salt Grated Parmesan (shelf-stable style) (Water for boiling pasta is assumed free and not counted.)
Read the full answer
Mercury 2291 words
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…
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…

Hy3498 words
The 90-Day Biohacker Longevity & Performance Protocol Goal: Maximize healthspan, cognitive resilience, and physical capacity via quantified self, metabolic flexibility, and targeted compounds. Assumptions: Healthy adult, experienced with fasting/exercise, access to wearables & supplements. I.
Read the full answer
Mercury 22,100 words
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.)
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Hy3997 words
Assumptions / Starting Point Current time: Monday 9:00 AM. Board meeting: Wednesday 9:00 AM (Hour 48). Earnings call: Thursday 9:00 AM (Hour 72). Drug: $2B revenue, 4M patients, liver failure 1/8,000 over 5 yrs (~500 total, ~100/yr).
Read the full answer
Mercury 21,934 words
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.
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.…

Hy3559 words
Below are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch, why they fail under scrutiny, and how to fix them with concrete, defensible improvements. Slide 3 – “94% accuracy” and “works with any language, any device” Why it’s weak: Technical implausibility: State-of-the-art non-invasive EEG decoding for…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2900 words
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.”
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

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

Hy3921 words
Premise: A functional solid-state transistor (germanium point-contact or junction) is demonstrated in 1920, with steady refinement through the interwar years. Vacuum tubes are not immediately displaced, but by the early 1930s transistors are reliable enough for niche military and telecom use, and by the late 1930s they…
Read the full answer
Mercury 22,965 words
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.
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) –…

Hy3354 words
1) Simplified LBO Model (FY2026–FY2030, $m) Entry (end FY25): EBITDA $120m, EV = 12.0x = $1,440m. Fees 2% = $28.8m. Debt: TL $480m (9% cash, 1% amort), Mezz $180m (12% cash + 2% PIK). Equity = 1,440+28.8–660 = $808.8m. FY Revenue EBITDA TL Int Mezz Int Cash Tax* Capex ΔNWC FCF after req. svc (opt.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2736 words
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.)
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Hy3
Hy3
Mercury 2
Mercury 2Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Hy3 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.

Slight edge
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Hy3
Input
$0.13
1.9× cheaper
Output
$0.53
1.4× cheaper
Mercury 2
Input
$0.25
Output
$0.75

Hy3 is cheaper on both: 1.9× input, 1.4× output.

Where to run it

7 hosts, cheapest first

Hy36 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Tencentfp8$0.08 in·$0.33 out·262k·99.9% upDDeepInfrafp4$0.13 in·$0.53 out·262k·99.6% upGGMI Cloudbf16$0.14 in·$0.58 out·262k·98.6% upNNovita$0.14 in·$0.58 out·262k·99.7% upPPhala$0.15 in·$0.64 out·262k·99.9% upAAtlasCloudfp8$0.20 in·$0.80 out·262k·99.9% up
Mercury 21 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.25 in·$0.75 out·128k·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 22 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Hy3 is developed by Tencent while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. Hy3 has a 262K token context window vs Mercury 2's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 14 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Hy3 and Mercury 2 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 14 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Hy3 costs $0.132/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. Hy3 is $0.12/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 Hy3 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.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Hy3 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Hy3 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Hy3 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Hy3 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Hy3 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Hy3 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Hy3 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Mercury 2 vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Hy3 logoHy4 Preview logo
Hy3 vs Hy4 PreviewSame lab
Hy3 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Hy3 vs Claude Opus 4.6Same size
Mercury 2 logoMercury logo
Mercury 2 vs MercuryVersion compare
Mercury 2 logoMercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2 vs Mercury 2.5Same lab
Hy3 logoMiniMax M2-her logo
Hy3 vs MiniMax M2-herNew provider
Hy3 logoMiniMax M2.1 logo
Hy3 vs MiniMax M2.1New provider
Hy3 logoMiniMax M2.5 logo
Hy3 vs MiniMax M2.5New provider
Hy3 logoMiniMax M2.7 logo
Hy3 vs MiniMax M2.7New provider

Model pages

Hy3 logo
Hy314 outputs, specs and price
Mercury 2 logo
Mercury 253 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