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 2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Ling 3.0 FlashvsMercury 2.5

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper than Mercury 2.5 at $0.021/M vs $0.04/M input tokens.

Ling 3.0 Flash and Mercury 2.5 compared across 16 shared prompts
SpecLing 3.0 FlashMercury 2.5
Input price$0.021/M tokens$0.04/M tokens
Output price$0.063/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window262K tokens260K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedJul 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 16 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Ling 3.0 Flash1,129 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of an LLM as a system that learns a massive, multidimensional routing table. When you built distributed systems, you learned patterns from traffic logs — which endpoints get hammered at 3am, which failure modes correlate, which request chains tend to cascade.
Read the full answer
Mercury 2.5572 words
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.
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…

Ling 3.0 Flash2,510 words
🍽️ TERRA NUDA — A Study in Forest Petrichor A Six-Component Dish Exploring the Ephemeral Moment After Rain Falls on a Living Forest 📖 CONCEPTUAL NARRATIVE Terra Nuda — Latin for "naked earth" — is inspired by the liminal moment immediately after a summer storm passes through a forest: the air thick with petrichor…
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

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 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

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…

Ling 3.0 Flash568 words
🌱 Your 1-Month Health & Longevity Starter Plan 🥦 1. Diet — Nourish, Don't Deprive Week 1: Awareness Keep a food journal — just track what you eat (no judgment). This alone builds mindful eating habits. Add, don't subtract — introduce one extra serving of vegetables per meal.
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

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

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

Ling 3.0 Flash3,452 words
The 1920 Transistor: A Counterfactual Cascade Through 1980 This is a rich counterfactual. A 27-year acceleration of the transistor doesn't just move technology forward — it restructures the causal chains of the 20th century.
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

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 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
Our Verdict
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash
Input
$0.02
1.9× cheaper
Output
$0.06
2.4× cheaper
Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
Output
$0.15

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper on both: 1.9× input, 2.4× 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 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·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 2.5 is developed by Inception. Ling 3.0 Flash has a 262K token context window vs Mercury 2.5's 260K. 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 2.5 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 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash is $0.02/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 2.5 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

Ling 3.0 Flash logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Ling 3.0 Flash logoHy3 logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 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 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 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 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 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 2.5 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
Ling 3.0 Flash logoGPT-4.1 Nano logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs GPT-4.1 NanoNew provider
Ling 3.0 Flash logoGPT-4.5 logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs GPT-4.5Same size
Ling 3.0 Flash logoGPT-4o (Omni) logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs GPT-4o (Omni)Same size
Ling 3.0 Flash logoGPT-4o mini logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs GPT-4o miniNew provider

Model pages

Ling 3.0 Flash logo
Ling 3.0 Flash16 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