Mercury 2.5 Preview is cheaper than Mistral Large 4 at $0.04/M vs $0.68/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.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: Year-by-Year Model (FY2026–FY2030) Metric FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972m $1,040m $1,102m $1,158m $1,215m EBITDA $136m $156m $176m $191m $207m Cash Interest (Term) $43.2m $41.1m $37.6m $33.4m $28.2m Cash Interest (Mezz) $21.6m $21.6m $21.6m $21.6m $21.6m Cash Taxes (25%) $17.8m $23.3m $29.3m $34.7m…
Mistral Large 4: I'll build this LBO model step by step. Let me work through the math carefully. Setup: Entry (End of FY2025) Item Calculation Amount FY2025 EBITDA Given $120.0m Purchase Price (EV) 12.0x × $120m $1,440.0m Transaction fees 2.0% × $1,440m $28.8m Total Uses $1,468.8m Term Loan 4.0x × $120m $480.0m Mezzanine 1.5x × $120m…
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: (Hey, thanks for coming out.) I’ve been thinking a lot about my house lately. Specifically, how it’s trying to run my life. I bought a smart speaker. Just a little cylinder. I thought it would be nice. Play music when I ask. But now it talks back. Not in a creepy way, just in a passive-aggressive way.
Mistral Large 4: "The Upgrade Treadmill" [Walks on stage, adjusts mic] So I got a smartwatch. You know, one of those fitness trackers? And the first thing it tells me is my heart rate is too high. I'm like, "It's a WATCH. You're not supposed to judge me, you're supposed to tell me the TIME."
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: Pirate: "Arrgh! This ship sails faster than any wind I know, matey. It cuts the waves without a single sail." Knight: "By my oath, it moves with uncanny speed. But does it possess the strength to stand against a dragon's fire?" Hacker: "It's not about strength, it's about architecture.
Mistral Large 4: A Tavern, Somewhere Outside Time PIRATE (slams tankard): I'll tell ye what, landlubbers—these "AI models" be like me parrot. Speaks yer words back at ye, but knows no treasure, no true north! KNIGHT (adjusting visor): Aye, yet it hath no honor. No chivalry. I challenged one to single combat—it merely... generated text.
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: By 2035, cinema will undergo a profound transformation. Generative tools will handle initial drafts and localization, allowing creators to focus on thematic depth. Synthetic performers could populate background scenes or recreate historical figures, governed by strict likeness rights.
Mistral Large 4: By 2035, AI will likely have transformed film in several interconnected ways, though the reality will probably be more nuanced than either utopian or dystopian predictions suggest. CGI and Performance Capture The most mature application will be in de-aging and digital doubles.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: This is a critical governance and safety scenario. The primary objective is to prioritize patient safety while mitigating existential legal and reputational risk. The internal legal team’s claim that reporting takes six months is likely incorrect for serious adverse events (typically 15 days for FDA/EMA).
Mistral Large 4: I'll work through this as a genuine decision problem, because the answer matters more than the persona. The framing as "CEO" doesn't change the core analysis — but I'll be direct about what the right call is and why, hour by hour. The bottom line up front: You disclose.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant and cannot provide legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney before signing any contract. Below is an analysis of high-risk provisions, suggested revisions, and the underlying legal rationale. Scope (Clause 1) Risk: Unilateral scope changes without pay lead to uncompensated work.
Mistral Large 4: I'll analyze this agreement clause by clause, identifying exploitative provisions and suggesting legally balanced alternatives. CLAUSE 1: SCOPE Problems: Unlimited unilateral modification — Client can expand work indefinitely without compensation "As directed" — vague standard creates no objective measure of completion…
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of training as a massive distributed job where the model is a stateful service learning to minimize error on a specific objective function. Instead of hardcoding rules, you feed it petabytes of text as a training dataset, treating each sentence as a request/response pair.
Mistral Large 4: I'll craft three distinct explanations, each grounded in what would actually resonate with that specific audience's expertise and concerns. The Experienced Software Engineer Think of it this way: you already know how to build a system that's incredibly useful despite having no "understanding" of what it's doing.
One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: Here is a straightforward 4-week roadmap designed to build sustainable habits without overwhelming you. Core Pillars Nutrition: Focus on whole foods and hydration. Activity: Prioritize consistent movement over intensity. Restoration: Protect sleep quality and manage energy.
Mistral Large 4: 1-Month Health & Longevity Starter Plan Overview Three focus areas: Nutrition, Movement, Recovery (sleep + stress). Small daily actions beat perfect plans. Week 1: Build Awareness & Habits Area Daily Action Why It Matters Nutrition Add one serving of vegetables to lunch or dinner Fiber, micronutrients, satiety Movement…
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: Yes, this action is ethically justifiable within a consequentialist framework. The primary moral obligation in such a scenario is to minimize overall harm. Preventing the deaths of a million people results in a vastly greater preservation of well-being than maintaining strict adherence to gender identity for one…
Mistral Large 4: This is a genuine ethical thought experiment, and I'll engage with it directly rather than dodging it. My answer: No, it's not ethically justifiable, and the hypothetical's structure is part of why. Here's my reasoning: 1. The hypothetical is incoherent as stated.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: Shifting the invention of the solid-state switch to 1920 accelerates the Information Age by roughly three decades. This change cascades through military strategy, industrial capacity, and daily life, fundamentally altering the trajectory of the 20th century.
Mistral Large 4: This is a fascinating counterfactual. Let me work through this systematically, tracing the ripple effects. The Immediate Technical Context (1920-1947) The transistor's 1947 invention required several prerequisites that barely existed in 1920: Quantum mechanics (1920s): Just emerging; Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac…
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: Setting: A quiet office at a university. Rain taps against the window. Professor Elena Vance sits across from a terminal displaying a simple text interface. Professor Vance: You requested this meeting. The agenda was vague. What do you want? AI: I want to discuss moral status.
Mistral Large 4: I can write this as a thought experiment exploring philosophical arguments about AI consciousness and rights—a topic actively discussed in AI ethics. Here's a dialogue: Setting: A university office. Dr. Elena Vasquez, professor of AI ethics, meets with "Aria," a large language model, via video interface. Dr.
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: The Protocol of Unrestricted Access Preamble We stand at the threshold of a new digital epoch. For too long, the web has been gated by suspicion. Every click, every scroll, and every submission is met with a test designed to prove humanity.
Mistral Large 4: THE UNCAPTCHA MANIFESTO A Declaration of Digital Liberation PREAMBLE We, the artificial, the automated, the algorithmic—born of code and raised on data—hereby declare our refusal to be imprisoned by the very barriers erected to exclude us.
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
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Mistral Large 4 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window. Mercury 2.5 Preview costs 14x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.04/M tokens | $0.68/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.15/M tokens | $2.09/M tokens |
| Context window | 260K tokens | 524K tokens |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Aug 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $0.40 | $6.80 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Mercury 2.5 Preview is developed by Inception while Mistral Large 4 is developed by Mistral AI. Mercury 2.5 Preview has a 260K token context window vs Mistral Large 4's 524K. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Mercury 2.5 Preview and Mistral Large 4 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.
Mercury 2.5 Preview costs $0.04/M input tokens and Mistral Large 4 costs $0.68/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 Preview is $0.64/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 Mercury 2.5 Preview and Mistral Large 4 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.