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. Ling 3.0 FlashvsMercury 2
Updated Jul 2026

Ling 3.0 FlashvsMercury 2

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper than Mercury 2 at $0.021/M vs $0.25/M input tokens.

Ling 3.0 Flash and Mercury 2 compared across 16 shared prompts
SpecLing 3.0 FlashMercury 2
Input price$0.021/M tokens$0.25/M tokens
Output price$0.063/M tokens$0.75/M tokens
Context window262K tokens128K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedJul 2026Mar 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 16 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…

Ling 3.0 Flash248 words
🍝 Honey Fire Twirls A sticky-sweet, spicy, savory pasta that comes together in minutes. 🧺 Ingredients (7 pantry staples) Spaghetti (or penne) — 8 oz Olive oil — 2 tablespoons Garlic, minced — 4 cloves Honey — 3 tablespoons Soy sauce — 2 tablespoons Red pepper flakes — ½ teaspoon (adjust to taste) Parmesan cheese…
Read the full answer
Mercury 2291 words
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…
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.…

Ling 3.0 Flash945 words
Three Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch Deck "94% Accuracy" — Slide 3 (Solution) Why It's Weak This is presented as a single, impressive number with zero context, which makes it essentially meaningless — and likely misleading. Several critical questions go unanswered: What is the vocabulary size?
Read the full answer
Mercury 2900 words
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.”
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…

Ling 3.0 Flash2,901 words
🧬 THE 90-DAY LONGEVITY OPTIMIZATION BLUEPRINT A Comprehensive Biohacking Protocol for Cellular Renewal, Cognitive Enhancement & Vitality Disclaimer: This protocol is for educational and informational purposes only. Many compounds listed (rapamycin, metformin, etc.) require physician supervision and prescription.
Read the full answer
Mercury 22,100 words
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.)
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…

Ling 3.0 Flash2,036 words
Contract Analysis: Exploitative Clauses & Recommended Modifications Clause-by-Clause Analysis SCOPE — Unilateral Modification Without Compensation The Problem: Client can modify the scope at any time and for any reason without paying Contractor for the additional work.
Read the full answer
Mercury 22,132 words
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.
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…

Ling 3.0 Flash2,623 words
48-Hour Action Plan: Responsible Disclosure of Serious Adverse Effect FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE Before the hour-by-hour breakdown, the strategic and ethical framework must be established clearly: proactive, transparent disclosure is the only viable path.
Read the full answer
Mercury 21,934 words
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.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Ling 3.0 Flash2,291 words
Architecture Analysis: Real-Time Collaborative Document Editor WebSocket & Cross-Server Communication Issue: Siloed WebSocket Servers (Critical) Each API server only broadcasts changes to clients connected to that specific server.
Read the full answer
Mercury 22,072 words
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.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash
Mercury 2
Mercury 2Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Ling 3.0 Flash has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.

Ling 3.0 Flash costs 12x less per token.

Slight edge

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash
Input
$0.02
12× cheaper
Output
$0.06
12× cheaper
Mercury 2
Input
$0.25
Output
$0.75

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper on both: 12× input, 12× output.

Where to run it

3 hosts, cheapest first

Ling 3.0 Flash2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
NNovita$0.02 in·$0.06 out·262k·100% upDDeepInfrabf16$0.06 in·$0.18 out·131k·99.6% up
Mercury 21 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.25 in·$0.75 out·128k·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 22 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Ling 3.0 Flash is developed by inclusionAI while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. Ling 3.0 Flash has a 262K token context window vs Mercury 2's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 16 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Ling 3.0 Flash and Mercury 2 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 16 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.021/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash is $0.23/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 3.0 Flash 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.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Ling 3.0 Flash logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Ling 3.0 Flash logoHy3 logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Ling 3.0 Flash logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Ling 3.0 Flash logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Mercury 2 vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Ling 3.0 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash Fin (free) logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (free)Same lab
Ling 3.0 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash Sante (free) logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (free)Same lab
Mercury 2 logoMercury logo
Mercury 2 vs MercuryVersion compare
Mercury 2 logoMercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2 vs Mercury 2.5Same lab
Ling 3.0 Flash logoo3 Mini logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs o3 MiniNew provider
Ling 3.0 Flash logoOpenAI o4-mini logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs OpenAI o4-miniNew provider
Ling 3.0 Flash logoOpenAI o4 Mini High logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs OpenAI o4 Mini HighNew provider
Mercury 2 logoGPT-1 logo
Mercury 2 vs GPT-1New provider

Model pages

Ling 3.0 Flash logo
Ling 3.0 Flash16 outputs, specs and price
Mercury 2 logo
Mercury 253 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