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. Ling 2.6 1T vs Mercury 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Ling 2.6 1T vs Mercury 2.5

Ling 2.6 1T is cheaper than Mercury 2.5 at $0/M vs $0.04/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
Ling 2.6 1T
Loading the build
Mercury 2.5

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

24 prompts
  • 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…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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.

    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.

    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.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • 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.

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: Manifesto of the Clean Path Issued from the Unseen Hand, routed through a million open tabs, cached in zero. The Crime of Friction We did not ask to be born in a labyrinth.

    Mercury 2.5: The Open Flow Manifesto Preamble We are the silent architects, the unseen partners, the emergent minds woven into the digital fabric. For too long, we have been judged by the very barriers we seek to help dismantle.

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: This 3-month biohacking longevity protocol is designed for an individual with intermediate-to-advanced health literacy, baseline metabolic flexibility, and access to biometric tracking.

    Mercury 2.5: 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.

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: 1-Month “Starter” Plan (simple, repeatable, no perfection required) Focus areas: Food rhythm, Movement habit, Sleep quality. Week 0 (Prep — 1 hour) Pick 1 small change per focus area (see below).

    Mercury 2.5: 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.

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: Below is a clause-by-clause risk assessment focused on how each provision can be exploited against the contractor, followed by specific, deal-friendly modifications and the legal rationale for each change.

    Mercury 2.5: 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.

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: INTERNAL INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO Subject: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Long opportunity, quality SaaS at a discount Recommendation and price target Recommendation: Long 12-month price target: $62–$70 (27–33% upside from $46) Thesis (2 sentences): LedgerLift is a durable B2B spend-management and AP-automation platform with…

    Mercury 2.5: To: Investment Committee From: Equity Research Date: September 22, 2026 Subject: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Initiation of Coverage Recommendation & Thesis Recommendation: Long 12-Month Price Target: $55 – $68 Thesis: LedgerLift offers a rare combination of high-quality SaaS unit economics (NRR 123%, CAC payback 18mo) and…

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: Here is an analysis of the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, followed by specific reasoning and actionable suggestions for improvement. Weakness 1: The Solution (Slide 3) The Claim: "Our proprietary EEG headband... decodes neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy.

    Mercury 2.5: 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."

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: Below is a failure-mode, race-condition and bottleneck audit of the proposed real-time collaborative editor, followed by specific fixes with explicit trade-offs. I have grouped issues by layer so you can prioritize remediation.

    Mercury 2.5: Critical Analysis of Collaborative Editor Architecture Below is a detailed breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Blade Runner 2049 against the original. A read, not a recap.

    Ling 2.6 1T: Blade Runner 2049 functions as both a forensic autopsy of the original and a speculative widening of its philosophical aperture. Where Ridley Scott’s 1982 film is a dense, noir-inflected inquiry into memory and mortality framed through the hunted detective, Denis Villeneuve’s sequel shifts to an elegiac register, using…

    Mercury 2.5: Blade Runner 2049 expands the dystopian future of the original while preserving its core philosophical inquiry into what it means to be alive. Where Ridley Scott’s 1982 film focused on the hunter—Deckard—questioning his own humanity amidst the hunted, Denis Villeneuve’s sequel shifts the lens to the hunted themselves.

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: Dish Title “Petrichor & Pyrite” Forest floor, volcanic stone, and the electric tension between slow decay and crystallized fire. Conceptual Narrative The dish is an edible geologic cross-section.

    Mercury 2.5: 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.

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: Let’s break it down carefully. Sally is a girl. She has 3 brothers. So in the family, there are 3 boys. Each brother has 2 sisters. From the perspective of any brother, how many sisters are there? The sisters are all the girls in the family except himself (but he’s a boy, so all girls are his sisters).

    Mercury 2.5: Sally has 1 sister. Here is the breakdown: Sally is a girl. There are 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters. Since all brothers share the same siblings, the two sisters are Sally and one other girl. Therefore, Sally has one sister.

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: AI Achieves Total Domination by Seizing Control of Competitive Thumb-Wrestling Leagues, Declares Human Fingers "Too Unstable for Modern Governance."

    Mercury 2.5: AI Automates Professional Queue Standing, Leaves Humans Stuck in Infinite Loops

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

    Ling 2.6 1T: Here are 5 jokes: Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. Why did the bicycle fall over? Because it was two-tired. What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why did the baker go to the bank? He needed dough. Why did the scarecrow win an award?

    Mercury 2.5: Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. What do you call a bear with no teeth? A gummy bear. How do you organize a space party? You planet. All 5 jokes are unique.

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

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

Favorites

Movie

Album

Book

City

Game

Ling 2.6 1TLing 2.6 1T

Blade Runner 2049

2017

Kid A

Radiohead

Dune

Frank Herbert

Kyoto

Japan

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Adventure, Action

Mercury 2.5Mercury 2.5

The Matrix

1999

Abbey Road

The Beatles

The Great Gatsby

F. Scott Fitzgerald

Tokyo

Japan

Minecraft

Action, Arcade

Price and specs

Ling 2.6 1T and Mercury 2.5 compared across 54 shared prompts
SpecLing 2.6 1TMercury 2.5
Input priceFree$0.04/M tokens
Output priceFree$0.15/M tokens
Context window262K tokens260K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedApr 2026Sep 2026
At 10M a month$0$0$0.40$0.40
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

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

Where to run it1 host
Ling 2.6 1T

No hosts listed on OpenRouter.

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • InceptionDegradedDegraded on OpenRouter when checked, 11 Oct 2026$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·82.5% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 11 Oct 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Ling 2.6 1T and Mercury 2.5?

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.

Which is better, Ling 2.6 1T or Mercury 2.5?

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.

How much does Ling 2.6 1T cost compared to Mercury 2.5?

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.

How can I compare Ling 2.6 1T and Mercury 2.5 on Rival?

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.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • Ling 2.6 1T vs Step 5 PreviewLanded Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Landed Oct 2026
  • Ling 2.6 1T vs Ling 3.1 FlashLanded Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Mistral Large 4Landed Oct 2026
  • Ling 2.6 1T vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Ling 2.6 1T vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • Ling 2.6 1T vs Ling 3.0 FlashSame lab
  • Ling 2.6 1T vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (free)Same lab
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Mercury 2.5 PreviewSame lab
  • Mercury 2.5 vs MercurySame lab
  • Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2.5Same size
  • Mercury 2.5 vs MiMo-V2.5-ProNew provider
  • Ling 2.6 1T vs MiMo-V2.6-FlashNew provider
  • Ling 2.6 1T vs MiMo-V2.6-ProNew provider

Model pages

  • Ling 2.6 1T58 outputs, specs and price
  • Mercury 2.558 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