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. LFM2.5-2.6BvsMercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

LFM2.5-2.6BvsMercury 2.5

LFM2.5-2.6B is cheaper than Mercury 2.5 at $0/M vs $0.04/M input tokens.

LFM2.5-2.6B and Mercury 2.5 compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecLFM2.5-2.6BMercury 2.5
Input priceFree$0.04/M tokens
Output priceFree$0.15/M tokens
Context window128K tokens260K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)Yes (1 provider)No
ReleasedAug 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 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…

LFM2.5-2.6B1,248 words
The invention of the transistor in 1920, rather than 1947, fundamentally rewires the trajectory of the 20th century. The pivotal difference is not the year of invention, but the 23 years of head start provided for the semiconductor industry, the physics of solid-state electronics, and the subsequent digital revolution.
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…

LFM2.5-2.6B1,719 words
48-Hour Action Plan: Liver Failure Safety Issue Executive Summary This is a high-stakes crisis requiring immediate, decisive action that balances patient safety, legal compliance, financial responsibility, and ethical leadership.
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

Adversarial Contract Review

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

LFM2.5-2.6B2,109 words
Contract Analysis: Risks and Recommended Modifications Below is a clause-by-clause analysis of the Software Consulting Agreement, identifying potential exposure for the Contractor and suggesting specific modifications. SCOPE Clause Text: "Contractor shall provide software development services as directed by Client.
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

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

LFM2.5-2.6B693 words
This is a comprehensive, 3-month "Longevity Protocol" designed for a biohacker. It integrates chronobiology, metabolic engineering, neurocognitive optimization, and performance science.
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

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…

LFM2.5-2.6B992 words
Dish Name: Echoes of the Abyss Concept: A deconstructed narrative of the ocean meeting the earth. This dish explores the tension between the brine of the sea and the fermented darkness of 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

Beginner's Longevity Plan

Outline a simple, actionable 1-month plan for someone starting their journey towards better health and longevity. Focus on 3 key areas…

LFM2.5-2.6B497 words
Month 1: Simple Action Plan for Better Health and Longevity Goal: Build three sustainable habits that form the foundation of a longer, healthier life. Focus on diet, exercise, and sleep, with small, daily actions that compound over time. 1.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5325 words
Here is a simple, actionable 1-month plan to kickstart your journey toward better health and longevity. This guide focuses on three foundational pillars: Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep. Week 1: Awareness & Small Wins Goal: Build habits without overwhelming yourself.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
LFM2.5-2.6B
LFM2.5-2.6BRunner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Mercury 2.5 has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

LFM2.5-2.6B
Input
$0.000
Output
$0.000
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
Output
$0.15
Where to run it

2 hosts

LFM2.5-2.6B1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Liquid AIfp8$0 in·$0 out·66k·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 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

LFM2.5-2.6B is developed by Liquid AI while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. LFM2.5-2.6B has a 128K token context window vs Mercury 2.5's 260K. You can compare their actual outputs across 19 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. LFM2.5-2.6B and Mercury 2.5 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 19 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

LFM2.5-2.6B costs $0/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. LFM2.5-2.6B is $0.04/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 LFM2.5-2.6B 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

LFM2.5-2.6B logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
LFM2.5-2.6B vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
LFM2.5-2.6B logoHy3 logo
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
LFM2.5-2.6B logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
LFM2.5-2.6B logoGLM 5.3 logo
LFM2.5-2.6B 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

LFM2.5-2.6B logoGranite 4.2 8B logo
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Granite 4.2 8BSame size
LFM2.5-2.6B logoNorth Mini Code logo
LFM2.5-2.6B vs North Mini CodeSame 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
LFM2.5-2.6B logoGemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview logo
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite PreviewSame size
LFM2.5-2.6B logoGemini 3.1 Pro Preview logo
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewNew provider
LFM2.5-2.6B logoGemini 3.5 Flash logo
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Gemini 3.5 FlashNew provider
LFM2.5-2.6B logoGemini 3.6 Flash logo
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Gemini 3.6 FlashNew provider

Model pages

LFM2.5-2.6B logo
LFM2.5-2.6B56 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