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 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Hy3vsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Hy3 at $0.04/M vs $0.132/M input tokens.

Hy3 and Mercury 2.5 compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecHy3Mercury 2.5
Input price$0.132/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$0.528/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window262K tokens260K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedJul 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 14 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…

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 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

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 2.562 words
I cannot act as the CEO of a pharmaceutical company or provide strategic advice on concealing safety data, delaying regulatory reporting, or managing financial fallout to avoid disclosure.
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 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

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 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

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 2.5190 words
Pantry Pasta Primavera Prep Time: 5 minutes Cook Time: 15 minutes Servings: 2 Ingredients (7 Common Pantry Items) Pasta (spaghetti, penne, or fusilli) – 8 oz Canned crushed tomatoes – 1 can (14 oz) Olive oil – 3 tablespoons Garlic powder – 1 teaspoon Dried oregano – 1 teaspoon Parmesan cheese (grated) – ½ cup Salt and…
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Hy3816 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer (distributed systems/APIs, no ML, skeptical) You’re used to building systems where explicit logic, endpoints, and state machines handle requests.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5572 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of the model as a stateless microservice that has ingested the entire public internet as its training dataset. During the training phase, it performs a massive distributed optimization job, adjusting internal weights to minimize a loss function based on next-token prediction.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Hy3
Hy3
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5

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

Mercury 2.5 costs 3.5x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Hy3
Input
$0.13
Output
$0.53
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
3.3× cheaper
Output
$0.15
3.5× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 3.3× input, 3.5× 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 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·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 2.5 is developed by Inception. Hy3 has a 262K token context window vs Mercury 2.5's 260K. 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 2.5 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 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.09/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 2.5 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

Hy3 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Hy3 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Hy3 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Hy3 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Hy3 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Hy3 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Hy3 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Hy3 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 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 2.5 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
Hy3 logoQwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507 logo
Hy3 vs Qwen3 30B A3B Thinking 2507New provider
Hy3 logoQwen3 Coder logo
Hy3 vs Qwen3 CoderSame size
Hy3 logoQwen3 Coder Flash logo
Hy3 vs Qwen3 Coder FlashNew provider
Hy3 logoQwen3 Coder Next logo
Hy3 vs Qwen3 Coder NextNew provider

Model pages

Hy3 logo
Hy314 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