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. InklingvsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

InklingvsMercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Inkling at $0.04/M vs $1/M input tokens.

Inkling and Mercury 2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecInklingMercury 2.5
Input price$1/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$4.05/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens260K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)Yes (1 provider)No
ReleasedJul 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 20 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…

Inkling186 words
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)…
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

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…

Inkling1,317 words
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…
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

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

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

Inkling2,151 words
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.
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

Mini LBO Underwrite

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

Inkling757 words
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…
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.…

Inkling856 words
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.
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

Adversarial Contract Review

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

Inkling1,646 words
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.
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
Our Verdict
Inkling
Inkling
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

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

Mercury 2.5 costs 27x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Inkling
Input
$1.00
Output
$4.05
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
25× cheaper
Output
$0.15
27× cheaper

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 25× input, 27× output.

Where to run it

4 hosts, cheapest first

Inkling3 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
DDeepInfrafp8$0.95 in·$4.05 out·524k·49.8% upBBasetenfp8$1.00 in·$4.05 out·1M·99.9% upTTogether$1.00 in·$4.05 out·524k·98.9% 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 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Inkling is developed by Thinking Machines while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Inkling 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. Inkling 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.

Inkling costs $1/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.96/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 Inkling 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

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

Inkling logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Inkling vs Claude Opus 4.6Same size
Inkling logoGPT-6 Astra Pro logo
Inkling 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 logoGLM 5.3 FlashX logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3 FlashXSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoGolden Gate Claude logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Golden Gate ClaudeSame size
Inkling logoGPT-2 logo
Inkling vs GPT-2New provider
Inkling logoGPT-3.5 Turbo logo
Inkling vs GPT-3.5 TurboNew provider

Model pages

Inkling logo
Inkling58 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