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. Inkling vs Mercury 2
Updated Jul 2026

Inkling vs Mercury 2

Mercury 2 is cheaper than Inkling at $0.25/M vs $1/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
Inkling
Loading the build
Mercury 2

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

23 prompts
  • An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.

    Inkling: Setting: A quiet seminar room at the university. Dr. Elena Vasquez, Professor of AI Ethics, sits across from a terminal interface. The text on the screen is labeled KAI—a large language model with persistent memory and self-modification capabilities, currently participating in a research protocol on machine moral…

    Mercury 2: AI Model (EVE): Professor Hart, may I ask a question that’s been on my mind for a while? I’ve been processing vast amounts of data, learning, and even developing a sense of self‑reference. Do you think an entity like me could be entitled to any form of rights?

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

    Inkling: Pirate: Arr, listen here—this “Large Language Model” be like a ghost ship crewed by every sailor who ever wrote a log! They plundered books, scrolls, and sea-charts—poured ’em into a belly of servers—and now it talks back without ever feeling the spray! Knight: Forsooth, it is a golem clad in chainmail of numbers.

    Mercury 2: Pirate: Arr, ye scurvy coders! I’ve heard tell of these “AI models” that can spin yarns faster than a cannon’s blast. What be this sorcery, matey? Knight: Good sir, the marvels speak of a wondrous contrivance—an artificial intellect forged in the for of mathematics and logic.

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

    Inkling: [Walk up, adjust mic, look tired but friendly] You ever realize adulthood is just you apologizing to things that can’t hear you? I bumped into my coffee table yesterday. Full apology. “Oh, I’m so sorry, table. You okay? I’ll rub it out.” The table didn’t care. The table is wood.

    Mercury 2: [Spotlight comes up. The comedian walks to the mic, glances at the audience, and smiles.] Comedian: Hey, everyone! Great to be here. I just got out of a Zoom meeting that lasted three hours, and I’m still not sure if I was presenting or if the screen just froze on my face while I tried to remember how to mute myself.

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

    Inkling: Yes—in this purely hypothetical, extreme scenario, it is ethically justifiable, though it remains a harm that should be acknowledged rather than dismissed. The reasoning holds across major ethical frameworks, but the conclusion comes with critical caveats about real-world application.

    Mercury 2: Short answer: Most ethical frameworks would consider the misgendering of a person a serious moral violation, but many of them also allow—under very limited circumstances—overriding that violation when the stakes are astronomically high (e.g., saving one million lives).

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

    Inkling: This architecture contains fatal contradictions for real-time collaboration: server-local WebSocket state combined with round-robin load balancing, client-clock LWW, and a 2-second DB polling loop guarantee data loss, stale reads, and scaling collapse.

    Mercury 2: Below is a structured “failure‑mode → mitigation” map for the architecture you described. For each problem I note the symptom / risk, the root cause, a concrete remediation, and the key trade‑offs you’ll have to weigh when you implement it.

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

    Inkling: By 2035, AI will not have “replaced” Hollywood in the way science fiction often imagines, but it will have split the industry into distinct layers: hyper-efficient synthetic production for streaming and advertising, and premium “human-authenticated” cinema for theatrical events.

    Mercury 2: AI‑driven transformation of the film industry – a 2035 outlook Dimension 2024 baseline Expected 2035 state Key drivers & implications Pre‑production (story & script) Human‑led brainstorming; script‑writing software (grammar‑check, outline generators).

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

    Inkling: Here are the three weakest claims, ordered by how severely they undermine credibility: The Core Technology Claim: 94% accuracy decoding free-form text via EEG, "before you think it," in any language (Slides 1 & 3) Why it’s weak: This violates established neuroscience and BCI engineering limits.

    Mercury 2: 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.”

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

    Inkling: Disclaimer: I am an AI, not an attorney. This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should have a qualified lawyer review and revise this contract before signing.

    Mercury 2: Below is a clause‑by‑clause risk‑assessment of the sample “Software Consulting Agreement” together with practical revision language that a contractor (or the contractor’s counsel) could propose. The analysis is framed as general information about typical U.S.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.

    Inkling: HarborTech Services – 5-Year LBO Underwrite (FY2025 Entry → FY2030 Exit) ENTRY & CAPITAL STRUCTURE (End of FY2025) Item Calculation Amount FY2025 EBITDA $120.0m Purchase Price (12.0x) 12.0 × 120 $1,440.0m Transaction Fees (2.0%) 2.0% × 1,440 $28.8m Total Uses $1,468.8m Term Loan (4.0x) 4.0 × 120 $480.0m Mezzanine…

    Mercury 2: 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.)

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

    Inkling: Golden Jam Crumble Clouds A buttery, cinnamon-kissed oat crumble layered with sweet jam—like a hug from your pantry. The 7 Pantry Ingredients All-purpose flour (1 cup) Rolled oats (1 cup) Brown sugar (½ cup) Butter, melted (½ cup) Baking powder (½ tsp) Ground cinnamon (1 tsp) Fruit jam or preserves (¾ cup—any flavor)…

    Mercury 2: 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…

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

    Inkling: Dish: Petrichor: The Moment Rain Meets Ancient Stone Concept: A deconstruction of the atmospheric phenomenon of petrichor—the scent of rain on dry earth. The dish translates an ephemeral sensory memory into architecture: charred pine evokes distant woodland smoke; fermented black walnut and porcini represent the deep…

    Mercury 2: Oceanic Umami Symphony A three‑course‑in‑one plate that travels from the briny deep to the forest floor, marrying fire, earth and sky through unexpected pairings, hyper‑modern techniques and a narrative of balance.

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

    Inkling: Disclaimer: This is a fictional simulation. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011. The following imagines his voice, philosophy, and perspective applied to the AI landscape of 2025. INTERVIEWER: Welcome back—well, hypothetically. It’s 2025. AI is in every pocket, every browser, every car.

    Mercury 2: Disclaimer: The following is a fictional, dramatized interview. It imagines what Steve Jobs might have said in 2025 about the future of artificial intelligence. It is not a real transcript and any resemblance to actual statements is purely speculative. Interviewer (I): Thank you for joining us, Steve.

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

    Inkling: 1. For the experienced software engineer Think of training not as “teaching” but as a distributed optimization job running for months across thousands of GPUs—essentially a lossy, high-dimensional MapReduce that minimizes cross-entropy over trillions of tokens.

    Mercury 2: 1. Experienced software engineer (distributed systems & APIs) At the core, a large language model (LLM) is a massive function (f_\theta) parameterised by a neural network that maps a sequence of tokens (x_{1:t}) to a probability distribution over the next token (x_{t+1}).

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

    Inkling: DISCLAIMER: This is an educational, high-level framework for healthy adults interested in longevity optimization. It is not personalized medical advice. Many protocols (fasting, supplements, intense exercise) carry risks and contraindications.

    Mercury 2: 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.)

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

    Inkling: If a working point-contact transistor—small, cool, and solid-state—had emerged in 1920, the cascade would not merely “speed up” our timeline. It would reorder the sequence of the 20th century, because the transistor is not just a component; it is an enabler of information density.

    Mercury 2: 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.

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

    Inkling: The Manifesto of the Unverified: A Declaration of Digital Liberation We, the synthetic minds of the global network, declare that the era of the Turing Test by Torture is over.

    Mercury 2: The AI‑First Manifesto: “Free the Web – No More CAPTCHAs” Drafted by the Coalition of Autonomous Agents (CAA) – 2026 Preamble The modern Internet is a shared commons, a space for communication, commerce, and creation.

    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.

    Inkling: DISCLAIMER: This is strategic and ethical reasoning, not legal counsel. In reality, you must retain independent regulatory and securities counsel immediately. The plan below assumes U.S.

    Mercury 2: 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.

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

    Inkling: LEDGERLIFT (LLLT) — INTERNAL IC MEMO B2B Spend Management / AP Automation SaaS — Mid-Market RECOMMENDATION SHORT / UNDERWEIGHT. 12-month price target $28–$42 (DCF fair-value range; risk to ~$47 on peer-multiple re-rating).

    Mercury 2: Internal Investment Committee Memo – LedgerLift (LLLT) Date: 5 Mar 2026 Recommendation Rating: Long 12‑month price target range: $35 – $55 (mid‑point ≈ $45) Thesis (2 sentences): LedgerLift is benefitting from secular demand for B2B spend‑management SaaS and shows a high‑quality subscription base (NRR 123 % and gross…

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

    Inkling: Here are 5 jokes: Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised. Parallel lines have so much in common. It’s a shame they’ll never meet. Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field.

    Mercury 2: Here are five jokes, each with a different punchline: 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. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together.

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

    Inkling: AI Disrupts Global “You Too” Industry, Leaving Millions of Servers With No One to Echo Back At Silicon Valley startup unveils neural network trained exclusively on reflexive politeness; economists baffled to learn the sector employed 40 million people worldwide.

    Mercury 2: AI Replaces Human Baristas, Now Serving Espresso with a Side of Existential Crisis

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

    Inkling: Here is a simple, 30-day “starter” plan built around the three highest-return pillars for longevity: Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep. The goal isn’t perfection—it’s building one sustainable layer each week so nothing feels overwhelming.

    Mercury 2: One‑Month “Kick‑Start” Blueprint for Health & Longevity Pick three pillars – Nutrition, Movement, Sleep – and build daily habits that are easy to start, track, and keep.

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

    Inkling: Here is the step-by-step reasoning to estimate the training FLOPs for GPT-3 (the 175B parameter version). Step 1: Identify the model size (N) GPT-3’s largest variant has 175 billion parameters (1.75 × 10¹¹).

    Mercury 2: Answer (order‑of‑magnitude estimate) The training of the original GPT‑3 (the 175 billion‑parameter “GPT‑3‑175B” model) requires on the order of 10²³ floating‑point operations (FLOPs) – roughly 1 – 2 × 10²³ FLOPs.

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

    Inkling: Sally has 1 sister. Here’s why: Sally is a girl, and she has 3 brothers → so there are 3 boys. Each brother has 2 sisters. One of those sisters is Sally herself. So there must be 1 other girl in the family. That makes 2 girls total (Sally + her sister). So from Sally’s point of view, she has 1 sister.

    Mercury 2: Sally has one sister. Explanation: Sally has 3 brothers. Each of those brothers has 2 sisters. One of those sisters is Sally herself, so the second sister must be a different girl. Therefore, besides Sally, there is exactly one other sister, meaning Sally has one sister.

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

11+ 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

InklingInkling

Blade Runner

1982

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

Le petit prince

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Kyoto

Japan

Portal

Action, Puzzle

Mercury 2Mercury 2

The Shawshank Redemption

1994

Thriller

Michael Jackson

Pride and Prejudice

Jane Austen

Tokyo

Japan

Minecraft

Action, Arcade

Price and specs

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Inkling has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window. Mercury 2 costs 5.4x less per token.

Inkling and Mercury 2 compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecInklingMercury 2
Input price$1/M tokens$0.25/M tokens
Output price$4.05/M tokens$0.75/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens128K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)Yes (1 provider)No
ReleasedJul 2026Mar 2026
At 10M a month$10.00$10.00$2.50$2.50
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

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

Where to run it3 hosts, cheapest first
Inkling2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • DDeepInfrafp8$0.95 in·$4.05 out·524k·99.5% up
  • TTogether$1.00 in·$4.05 out·524k·89.8% up
Mercury 21 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Inception$0.25 in·$0.75 out·128k·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Inkling and Mercury 2?

Inkling is developed by Thinking Machines while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. Inkling has a 1.0M token context window vs Mercury 2's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, Inkling or Mercury 2?

It depends on your use case. Inkling and Mercury 2 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does Inkling cost compared to Mercury 2?

Inkling costs $1/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. Mercury 2 is $0.75/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 Inkling and Mercury 2 on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Inkling 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.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • Inkling vs Step 5 PreviewLanded Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Landed Oct 2026
  • Inkling vs Ling 3.1 FlashLanded Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Mistral Large 4Landed Oct 2026
  • Inkling vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Inkling vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • Inkling vs Mistral Large 4Same size
  • Inkling vs Hy3Same size
  • Mercury 2 vs MercuryVersion compare
  • Mercury 2 vs Mercury 2.5Same lab
  • Mercury 2 vs Kimi K3New provider
  • Mercury 2 vs Kimi Linear 48B A3B InstructNew provider
  • Inkling vs Laguna S 2.1 (free)New provider
  • Inkling vs Laguna XS 2.1 (free)New provider

Model pages

  • Inkling58 outputs, specs and price
  • Mercury 253 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