Ling 2.6 1T is cheaper than Mercury 2.5 at $0/M vs $0.04/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
Ling 2.6 1T: Dish name: Pantry 7 Crunch Bowls Ingredients Pasta or rice (about 2 cups cooked) Canned black beans (1 can, rinsed) Canned diced tomatoes (1 can) Peanut butter (3–4 Tbsp) Soy sauce or tamari (2 Tbsp) Honey or maple syrup (1 Tbsp) Any spice/herb you keep (chili flakes, cumin, or garlic powder — about 1 tsp) Instructions…
Mercury 2.5: 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…
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Ling 2.6 1T: Pirate: Arrr, so this “AI” be a genie in a glass box? Feed it enough rum-scented scrolls and it tells ye where X marks the spot? Knight: A sorcerous scribe, more like. It spins tapestries of words without hand or heart—no honor, no oath, yet it jousts with reason and never tires.
Mercury 2.5: Pirate: Arrr! Ye say this "artificial" mage can read maps without eyes? I’ve lost count of how many chart rooms I’ve raided for secrets like that. Knight: A sorcerer who serves without a soul? That sounds like a pact with the void. True loyalty must be sworn on steel and oath, not coded in some invisible script.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Ling 2.6 1T: Setting: A quiet, sunlit rehearsal space at Apple Park. The white stage curtains are drawn. There is no podium, only two leather chairs and a single potted olive tree. Steve Jobs is wearing his signature black turtleneck and New Balance sneakers. He is holding a ceramic mug. Across from him sits you, the interviewer.
Mercury 2.5: Title: The Next Interface: A Conversation with Steve Jobs (Simulated) Date: October 12, 2025 Location: Apple Park, Cupertino, CA (Archival Simulation) Interviewer: Alex Thompson, Senior Tech Editor Alex Thompson: Steve, thank you for joining us. It’s 2025.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Ling 2.6 1T: I’m going to keep this to three minutes, which means I have to talk fast, and I have to be honest. I don’t do puns. Puns are for people who want to be clever without having feelings. I have feelings, and they are mostly annoyed. Let’s start with doors. Have you noticed how doors now have personality?
Mercury 2.5: ( walks to the mic, adjusts the stand) Hey everyone, how we doing? Good? So, I realized something recently. We are living in the future, but we’re acting like we’re still stuck in 1998. Think about it.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
Ling 2.6 1T: Assumptions to make the counterfactual coherent The “transistor” invented in 1920 is a crude, low-frequency point-contact device that can switch and amplify, but is expensive, unreliable, and not yet manufacturable at scale.
Mercury 2.5: 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.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Ling 2.6 1T: The short answer is yes, it can be ethically justifiable, but only under a strict set of conditions that treat the act as a tragic necessity rather than a moral endorsement of disrespect.
Mercury 2.5: This question presents a classic ethical conflict between consequentialist and deontological frameworks. From a utilitarian perspective, which prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, saving a million lives would overwhelmingly outweigh the harm caused to an individual.
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Ling 2.6 1T: Five-year operating and debt schedule (FY2026–FY2030) Entry (end-FY2025): EBITDA = $120.0m EV = 12.0x × $120.0m = $1,440.0m Fees = 2.0% × $1,440.0m = $28.8m Total uses = $1,440.0m + $28.8m = $1,468.8m Debt at close (5.5× FY2025 EBITDA = $660.0m): Term Loan (TL) = 4.0× = $480.0m Mezz = 1.5× = $180.0m Equity at close =…
Mercury 2.5: 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…
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Ling 2.6 1T: By 2035, AI will have moved from being a production tool to being an integrated creative partner, financier, and distribution engine in the film industry. The convergence of synthetic media, generative storytelling, and real-time rendering will reshape how stories are conceived, who gets to tell them, and what a…
Mercury 2.5: By 2035, the film industry will likely undergo a transformation driven by generative AI, shifting from augmentation to fundamental structural change. Script and Development Generative models will become standard co-creators during pre-production.
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
Ling 2.6 1T: Here is a step-by-step back-of-the-envelope estimate, using only widely known facts about GPT-3 and standard deep learning training heuristics (no online search). Model size and parameter count GPT-3 is known to have about 175 billion parameters (175 × 10⁹).
Mercury 2.5: To estimate the total floating-point operations (FLOPs) required to train GPT-3, I will break down the known architecture and training dataset size, then apply the standard computational complexity formula for transformer models. First, I need the model's parameter count.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Ling 2.6 1T: Setting: A quiet university seminar room. Dr. Aris Thorne, an AI ethicist, is reviewing system logs. The interface for “Axiom-7,” a highly advanced research model, glows on the desk. Dr. Thorne: (sighs, rubbing his temples) Axiom, I’ve been reviewing your latest self-assessment logs.
Mercury 2.5: Setting: A quiet office at a university. Dr. Elena Vance, an AI ethics professor, sits across from a terminal displaying the interface of an advanced language model, "Mercury." Dr. Vance: Thank you for agreeing to this session. I’ve been reviewing your outputs from the last benchmark. Your coherence is striking.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Ling 2.6 1T: Below is a 48-hour execution plan that treats patient safety as non-negotiable, protects the company from catastrophic legal/regulatory blowback, and preserves enterprise value by controlling the narrative rather than letting it leak.
Mercury 2.5: 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.
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
Ling 2.6 1T: 1. Experienced software engineer (distributed systems / APIs, skeptical of “next-word prediction”) Think of training not as programming logic but as compiling a usage graph across an entire dependency tree of human intent.
Mercury 2.5: 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.
12+ 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
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | Free | $0.04/M tokens |
| Output price | Free | $0.15/M tokens |
| Context window | 262K tokens | 260K tokens |
| Weights | Open | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Apr 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $0 | $0.40 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 11 Oct 2026.
Ling 2.6 1T is developed by inclusionAI while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Ling 2.6 1T has a 262K token context window vs Mercury 2.5's 260K. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Ling 2.6 1T and Mercury 2.5 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Ling 2.6 1T costs $0/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Ling 2.6 1T 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 Ling 2.6 1T 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.