Mercury 2 is cheaper than Llama 3.1 405B at $0.25/M vs $2.7/M input tokens.
Sections that transition like Framer. Timing is the whole grade.
Which answer wins?
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Llama 3.1 405B has the edge: bigger model tier, major provider backing. Mercury 2 costs 4.1x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $2.7/M tokens | $0.25/M tokens |
| Output price | $3.1/M tokens | $0.75/M tokens |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Open | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Jul 2024 | Mar 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $27.00 | $2.50 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Llama 3.1 405B is developed by Meta AI while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. Llama 3.1 405B has a 128K token context window vs Mercury 2's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 12 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Llama 3.1 405B and Mercury 2 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 12 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Llama 3.1 405B costs $2.7/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. Mercury 2 is $2.45/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 Llama 3.1 405B 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.