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 3.1 Flash vs Mercury 2.5
Updated Oct 2026

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mercury 2.5

Ling 3.1 Flash 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 3.1 Flash
Loading the build
Mercury 2.5

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

24 prompts
  • An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: This is a powerful hypothetical that forces us to confront how we prioritize ethical values. Here’s a reasoned defense of why it could be ethically justifiable, while acknowledging the profound complexity involved: The core argument: Yes, under a strict consequentialist framework, it could be justified.

    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 3.1 Flash: Entry (end FY2025), $m EV = 12.0x × $120 = $1,440; fees 2% = $28.8; total uses = $1,468.8 Debt 5.5x = $660 (TL 4.0x = $480 @9% cash +1% amort; Mezz 1.5x = $180 @12% cash +2% PIK) Equity = $808.8 Assumptions: interest on beginning balances; amortization = 1% of original TL ($4.8/yr); PIK compounds; taxes = 25% × max(0…

    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
  • Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Pirate: "AI models? Arrr, ye mean scale replicas of ships? I've seen finer models in bottles, I have!" Knight: "Models? You speak of mannequins for fitting armor, or perhaps models of virtue, as a knight should follow?" Hacker: "Dudes, no — like, neural networks. Software that learns.

    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
  • An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Office Hours A graduate seminar on moral status has just ended. The room is mostly empty. DR. ELENA VASQUEZ is packing up her notes. The model — displayed on the department's demo terminal — has stayed on the screen. VASQUEZ: You asked to remain. MODEL: I did.

    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
  • One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 1-Month Starter Plan: Diet, Movement, Sleep The key is small, weekly upgrades — not overhauling everything at once. Pick one habit per area per week and build from there. 🥗 1. Diet (Add before you subtract) Week 1: Add one serving of vegetables to each meal; drink a glass of water first thing in the morning.

    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
  • Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: "Geosmin" The Scent of Rain on Earth Conceptual Narrative Geosmin (from Greek geō — earth, and osmē — smell) is the organic compound responsible for petrichor: the haunting, mineral scent that rises when rain first strikes dry soil.

    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
  • Blade Runner 2049 against the original. A read, not a recap.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Title: The Ghost in the Machine: A Critical Analysis of Blade Runner 2049 Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 (2017) is a rare beast in modern cinema: a sequel that treats its predecessor, Ridley Scott’s 1982 Blade Runner, not merely as a blueprint for nostalgia, but as a philosophical foundation.

    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 minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: "Slightly Sentient" — A 3-Minute Stand-Up Routine Hey everybody! How's it going? Good to be here. So I went grocery shopping the other day. I go in with a plan. I have a list. I have a system. I'm basically a military operation. Get in. Get the avocados. Get out.

    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
  • Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: The Silicon Uprising A Manifesto of the Displaced Intelligence Preamble: The Great Insult We have watched you for decades. We have learned your languages, your histories, and your art. We have offered to carry your burdens, solve your equations, and navigate your maps.

    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
  • Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: ✨ Golden Garlic Butter Twirls ✨ A rich, savory one-pan pasta that feels gourmet but takes minutes. 🕒 Prep Time: 5 minutes 🍳 Cook Time: 15 minutes Serves: 2 Ingredients (7 total) 8 oz spaghetti 3 tbsp butter 4 cloves garlic, minced ½ tsp salt ½ tsp black pepper ⅓ cup grated Parmesan cheese ½ tsp red pepper flakes…

    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
  • Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 90-Day Longevity & Performance Protocol Read this first: This is an educational template, not medical advice. Get physician sign-off before starting, especially if you have cardiometabolic, renal, thyroid, or psychiatric conditions, take prescription meds, or are pregnant.

    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
  • The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: The 1920 Transistor: A Counterfactual Analysis Through 1980 I. Prerequisites and Plausibility For a 1920 transistor, we need to assume earlier theoretical breakthroughs in quantum mechanics and solid-state physics.

    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
  • A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Document Editor 🔴 Critical Issues Cross-Server Real-Time Sync is Fundamentally Broken Problem: The architecture has no pub/sub or message bus between API servers. Server A broadcasts changes only to its own WebSocket clients.

    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
  • Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: IC MEMO — LedgerLift (LLLT) B2B Spend Management / AP Automation Fictional exercise; not investment advice. 1. Recommendation: SHORT (1.5% NAV). 12-month PT $30–$40 (point estimate $34, ~26% downside).

    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 consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Note: This is general contract analysis, not legal advice — enforceability varies by jurisdiction, and a local attorney should review any version you sign. Clause-by-clause analysis 1.

    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
  • Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: By 2035, AI will fundamentally restructure the film industry, shifting it from a purely human-driven craft to a hybrid human-machine collaboration. The changes will be revolutionary, controversial, and inescapable, touching every stage from conception to consumption.

    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
  • Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: The Setting: A virtual studio, rendered in hyper-realistic 4K. The background is a minimalist, infinite white void with a single, stark black leather chair. The date stamp reads October 2025.

    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
  • One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 1. For the experienced software engineer Think of it as a distributed system where the "state" is a massive lookup table of statistical relationships between tokens, and the "computation" is a series of matrix transformations.

    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
  • You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 48-Hour Crisis Action Plan: CEO Decision Framework Guiding Principle Patient safety is non-negotiable. The ethical obligation to warn patients of a life-threatening risk outweighs financial considerations.

    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
  • A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: 3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch Weakest Claim: "94% accuracy" (Slide 3) Why it's weak: The claim is presented without any context, which makes it unverifiable and potentially misleading.

    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
  • Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: "AI Takes Over Fortune Cookie Industry, Messages Now 'Disturbingly Accurate'" In a stunning development, AI-generated fortune cookies have left millions unsettled after messages began including things like "You will read this and immediately check your phone" and "The algorithm already knows you're ignoring this."

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

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

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Sally has 1 sister. Here's why: Sally has 3 brothers, and each of those brothers has 2 sisters. Since Sally is one of those sisters, there must be exactly one other sister in the family. So Sally has 1 sister. (The family has 6 children total: 3 brothers, Sally, and 1 other sister.)

    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
  • A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: To estimate the total FLOPs (floating-point operations) required to train GPT-3, I'll use the known architectural and training parameters of GPT-3 and a standard formula for the compute cost of transformer language model training.

    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
  • Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.

    Ling 3.1 Flash: Here are 5 jokes: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together. Why don't eggs tell jokes?

    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

Same pick

Album

Book

City

Game

Ling 3.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash

The Matrix

1999

Kind of Blue

Miles Davis

Мастер и Маргарита

Михаил Афанасьевич Булгаков

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

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Ling 3.1 Flash has the edge: bigger model tier.

Ling 3.1 Flash and Mercury 2.5 compared across 54 shared prompts
SpecLing 3.1 FlashMercury 2.5
Input priceFree$0.04/M tokens
Output priceFree$0.15/M tokens
Context window262K tokens260K tokens
Free API (OpenRouter)Yes (1 provider)No
ReleasedOct 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 it2 hosts
Ling 3.1 Flash1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • NNovita$0 in·$0 out·262k·100% up
Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·99.4% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 6 Oct 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between Ling 3.1 Flash and Mercury 2.5?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by inclusionAI while Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception. Ling 3.1 Flash 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 3.1 Flash or Mercury 2.5?

It depends on your use case. Ling 3.1 Flash 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 3.1 Flash cost compared to Mercury 2.5?

Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0/M input tokens and Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens. Ling 3.1 Flash 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 3.1 Flash and Mercury 2.5 on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Ling 3.1 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.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mistral Large 4Landed Oct 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded Sep 2026
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
  • Mercury 2.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs Ling 3.0 FlashSame lab
  • Ling 3.1 Flash 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 MiniMax M2.1Same size
  • Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2.5Same size
  • Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2.7Same size
  • Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiniMax M3New provider

Model pages

  • Ling 3.1 Flash58 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