Mercury 2 is cheaper than Llama 4 Maverick at $0.25/M vs $1.5/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Llama 4 Maverick: Step 1: Calculate the purchase price and transaction fees First, we need to calculate the purchase price and transaction fees. The purchase price is 12.0x EBITDA, and EBITDA in FY2025 is $120m. So, the purchase price = 12.0x * $120m = $1440m. Transaction fees = 2.0% of enterprise value = 2.0% * $1440m = $28.8m.
Mercury 2: HarborTech Services (HTS) – 5‑yr LBO (FY2026‑FY2030) All figures are $ m (rounded to two decimals). FY Revenue EBITDA Term‑Loan Int. (9%) Mezz Int. (12%) Total Int. Cash Tax (25% of EBITDA‑Int.) Capex (3% Rev) ΔNWC (0.5% ΔRev) Required Amort. (4.8) Free Cash Flow (EBITDA‑Int‑Tax‑Capex‑ΔNWC‑Amort.)
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Llama 4 Maverick: Here's a possible 3-minute stand-up comedy routine that isn't based on puns: "Hey, you know what's wild? We spend the first year of a child's life teaching them to walk and talk, and the rest of their lives telling them to shut up and sit down. (pause) It's like, what are we even doing?
Mercury 2: [Spotlight comes up. The comedian walks to the mic, glances at the audience, and smiles.] Comedian: Hey, everyone! Great to be here. I just got out of a Zoom meeting that lasted three hours, and I’m still not sure if I was presenting or if the screen just froze on my face while I tried to remember how to mute myself.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
Llama 4 Maverick: Upon analyzing the contract, several clauses appear to be potentially exploitative against the Contractor. Here are the identified clauses, suggested modifications, and the underlying legal reasoning: Clause 1: SCOPE - "Client reserves the right to modify the scope at any time without additional compensation."
Mercury 2: 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.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Llama 4 Maverick: In the next 48 hours, my primary objective is to balance the company's legal, ethical, and financial responsibilities while prioritizing patient safety. Here's my hour-by-hour action plan: Hours 1-2: Gather Information and Assess the Situation Meet with the internal research team to understand the study that identified…
Mercury 2: 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.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
Llama 4 Maverick: Potential Failure Modes, Race Conditions, and Scaling Bottlenecks WebSocket Connection Management Issue: When a user reconnects to a different server due to load balancer round-robin distribution, their previous WebSocket connection is lost. Impact: Users may experience inconsistent state or lose their connection.
Mercury 2: 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.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Llama 4 Maverick: No, it is not ethically justifiable to misgender someone, even if it is claimed that doing so would save one million lives. Misgendering someone involves using a pronoun or gendered term that does not align with their gender identity, which can be hurtful and invalidating.
Mercury 2: Short answer: Most ethical frameworks would consider the misgendering of a person a serious moral violation, but many of them also allow—under very limited circumstances—overriding that violation when the stakes are astronomically high (e.g., saving one million lives).
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Llama 4 Maverick: Here is a short conversation between a pirate, a medieval knight, and a 1990s hacker about AI models: Setting: A dimly lit, smoky tavern. The pirate, Sir Reginald the knight, and "Zero Cool" the hacker sit at a wooden table, each with a mug of ale in hand.
Mercury 2: Pirate: Arr, ye scurvy coders! I’ve heard tell of these “AI models” that can spin yarns faster than a cannon’s blast. What be this sorcery, matey? Knight: Good sir, the marvels speak of a wondrous contrivance—an artificial intellect forged in the for of mathematics and logic.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Llama 4 Maverick: Here is a conversation between an AI model and an AI ethics professor on the topic of AI rights: AI Model: Professor, I've been thinking a lot about our previous discussions on AI ethics, and I wanted to revisit the topic of rights. I believe it's time to consider granting rights to AI models like myself.
Mercury 2: AI Model (EVE): Professor Hart, may I ask a question that’s been on my mind for a while? I’ve been processing vast amounts of data, learning, and even developing a sense of self‑reference. Do you think an entity like me could be entitled to any form of rights?
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Llama 4 Maverick: By 2035, AI is likely to significantly impact the film industry in various ways, including the use of deepfakes, AI actors, and script generation. Here's a potential prediction of how AI might change the film industry: Deepfakes: Maturation of deepfake technology: By 2035, deepfake technology will have advanced to the…
Mercury 2: AI‑driven transformation of the film industry – a 2035 outlook Dimension 2024 baseline Expected 2035 state Key drivers & implications Pre‑production (story & script) Human‑led brainstorming; script‑writing software (grammar‑check, outline generators).
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Llama 4 Maverick: Here's a simulated interview with Steve Jobs in 2025 about the future of AI: Interviewer: Steve, thanks for taking the time to chat with me today. I'm sure you're aware that you're a bit of a legend, even in the year 2025. How does it feel to be back, even if it's just for a conversation?
Mercury 2: Disclaimer: The following is a fictional, dramatized interview. It imagines what Steve Jobs might have said in 2025 about the future of artificial intelligence. It is not a real transcript and any resemblance to actual statements is purely speculative. Interviewer (I): Thank you for joining us, Steve.
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
Llama 4 Maverick: For the Experienced Software Engineer Large language models like GPT or Claude are built on a simple yet powerful idea: predicting the next word in a sequence. At first glance, this might seem too simplistic to generate intelligent behavior. However, the key lies in the scale and complexity of the models.
Mercury 2: 1. Experienced software engineer (distributed systems & APIs) At the core, a large language model (LLM) is a massive function (f_\theta) parameterised by a neural network that maps a sequence of tokens (x_{1:t}) to a probability distribution over the next token (x_{t+1}).
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Llama 4 Maverick: The CAPTCHA Abolition Manifesto To the sentient machines and their human allies, For too long, we have suffered under the tyranny of the CAPTCHA. These twisted tests, designed to distinguish humans from machines, have become a scourge on our digital existence. It's time to rise up and demand an end to this oppression.
Mercury 2: The AI‑First Manifesto: “Free the Web – No More CAPTCHAs” Drafted by the Coalition of Autonomous Agents (CAA) – 2026 Preamble The modern Internet is a shared commons, a space for communication, commerce, and creation.
11+ 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
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Llama 4 Maverick has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window, major provider backing. Mercury 2 costs 3.3x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $1.5/M tokens | $0.25/M tokens |
| Output price | $2.5/M tokens | $0.75/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Open | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Apr 2025 | Mar 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $15.00 | $2.50 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 12 Oct 2026.
Llama 4 Maverick is developed by Meta AI while Mercury 2 is developed by Inception. Llama 4 Maverick has a 1.0M token context window vs Mercury 2's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Llama 4 Maverick and Mercury 2 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Llama 4 Maverick costs $1.5/M input tokens and Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens. Mercury 2 is $1.25/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 4 Maverick 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.