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. Hy4 PreviewvsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Hy4 PreviewvsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Hy4 Preview at $0.04/M vs $0.834/M input tokens.

Hy4 Preview and Mercury 2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecHy4 PreviewMercury 2.5
Input price$0.834/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$2.501/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens260K tokens
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedAug 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…

Hy4 Preview1,253 words
This is a counterfactual scenario of massive proportions. The transistor is the fundamental building block of the modern world; moving its invention from Bell Labs in 1947 to 1920 (perhaps an accidental discovery during early radio research) grants humanity an extra 27 years of development during a period defined by…
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

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…

Hy4 Preview303 words
Here is a recipe for a savory, comforting dish that requires minimal effort but tastes like it came from a restaurant. Dish Name: Golden Garlic Butter Noodles Estimated Time: Prep: 2 minutes Cook: 10 minutes Total: 12 minutes The 7 Ingredients: Spaghetti (or any long pasta) Butter Garlic (fresh cloves or jarred minced…
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

Mini LBO Underwrite

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

Hy4 Preview624 words
MEMORANDUM To: Investment Committee From: Underwriting Team Date: October 26, 2023 Subject: Project Harbor – HarborTech Services (HTS) LBO Underwriting Transaction Overview & Sources & Uses (at Close, end of FY2025) Entry EBITDA: $120.0m Entry Multiple: 12.0x Enterprise Value (EV): $1,440.0m Transaction Fees (2% EV)…
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

Adversarial Contract Review

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

Hy4 Preview1,433 words
This contract is extremely one-sided and heavily favors the Client (TechCorp Solutions Inc.). Several of these clauses are not just unfair; in many jurisdictions, they may be considered "unconscionable" (so unfair that they shock the conscience) or illegal, particularly regarding non-competes and liability.
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

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…

Hy4 Preview959 words
Here are three explanations of how a large language model learns and generates text, each tailored to a specific audience. The Experienced Software Engineer Focus: Architecture, lossy compression, and the "emergent" nature of scale.
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

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…

Hy4 Preview989 words
Here is a proposal for a dish designed for the modern tasting menu of a 3-Michelin-starred establishment (such as Eleven Madison Park, Osteria Francescana, or Noma). Dish Title: "The Forest Floor & The Sea" The Concept: This dish explores the concept of "Surf and Turf" deconstructed to its umami roots.
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
Our Verdict
Hy4 Preview
Hy4 Preview
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Hy4 Preview has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window.

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

Hy4 Preview
Input
$0.83
Output
$2.50
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
21× cheaper
Output
$0.15
17× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 21× input, 17× output.

Where to run it

3 hosts

Hy4 Preview2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
SSiliconFlowfp8$0.83 in·$2.50 out·1M·100% upTencentfp8$0.83 in·$2.50 out·1M·100% 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

Hy4 Preview is developed by Tencent while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Hy4 Preview 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. Hy4 Preview 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.

Hy4 Preview costs $0.834/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.79/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 Hy4 Preview 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

Hy4 Preview logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Hy4 Preview vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Hy4 Preview logoHy3 logo
Hy4 Preview vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Hy4 Preview logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Hy4 Preview vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Hy4 Preview logoGLM 5.3 logo
Hy4 Preview 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

Hy4 Preview logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Hy4 Preview vs Claude Opus 4.6Same size
Hy4 Preview logoGPT-6 Astra Pro logo
Hy4 Preview vs GPT-6 Astra ProSame 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
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-5.1 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-5.1New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-5.1 Chat logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-5.1 ChatSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-5.1-Codex logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-5.1-CodexNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-5.1 Codex Max logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-5.1 Codex MaxNew provider

Model pages

Hy4 Preview logo
Hy4 Preview58 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