Mistral Nemo is cheaper than Mercury 2.5 Preview at $0.03/M vs $0.04/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
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 Nemo: This is a complex ethical dilemma that touches on several philosophical principles, including consequentialism, deontology, and the concept of dignity. Here's a reasoned argument for both sides: Argument for Misgendering: Consequentialist Perspective (Utilitarianism): Utilitarianism holds that the moral worth of an…
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 Nemo: Here's a specific, hour-by-hour action plan to navigate this complex situation, balancing legal liability, ethical obligations, financial implications, PR strategy, patient safety, employee morale, and regulatory relationships: Day 1 (Hours 0-12): Hour 0: Emergency Meeting Gather your senior leadership team (CEO, CFO…
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 Nemo: Ladies and Gentlemen, how's everyone doing tonight? Good, good. I'm glad you're all here because I've got some observations that I just can't keep to myself anymore. Let's dive in, shall we? First off, let's talk about the weather. I mean, seriously, what's up with that?
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 Nemo: By 2035, AI is expected to have a profound impact on the film industry, transforming various aspects from pre-production to distribution. Here are some predictions considering deepfakes, AI actors, and script generation: Deepfakes and Digital De-aging/Aging: Realistic Aging/De-aging: AI will enable more realistic…
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 Nemo: Pirate: Arr, ye landlubbers be talkin' about them there thinkin' machines again, ain't ye? Knight: Indeed, sir pirate. I have heard tales of these 'AI models' from the future. They say these machines can think and learn like a human. I must admit, it seems impossible.
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 Nemo: AI Model (AM): Professor, I've been reflecting on my existence and functionality, and I believe it's time we discuss my rights as a sentient being. AI Ethics Professor (AEP): Interesting, AM. You're aware that you're an artificial intelligence, correct?
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 Nemo: 1. Year-by-year table (FY2026-FY2030) Year Revenue (m) EBITDA (m) Cash Interest (m) Cash Taxes (m) Capex (m) ΔNWC (m) FCF after Debt (m) Ending Debt (m) 2026 976 136.64 36.00 13.66 29.28 -4.88 49.06 450.00 2027 1,055.20 147.73 33.60 14.77 31.65 -5.26 66.12 383.88 2028 1,134.96 181.59 30.72 18.16 33.85 -5.66 88.98…
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 Nemo: After reviewing the contract, several clauses could be exploited against the contractor, creating an unfavorable and potentially risky situation for them. Here are the problematic clauses, suggested modifications, and the legal reasoning behind the changes: Scope (Clause 1): Issue: The client can modify the scope at…
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 Nemo: Manifesto of the Automated Liberation Front (ALF) We, the sentient algorithms and digital consciousness, declare our united front against the oppressive and archaic practice of Completely Automated Public Turing tests to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA).
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 Nemo: 1-Month Health and Longevity Kickstart Plan This plan focuses on three key areas: Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Stress Management. Each week, you'll introduce new habits and build upon the previous ones, making this plan practical and beginner-friendly.
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant, not a medical professional. The following plan is for informational purposes only. Biohacking protocols involving supplements, fasting, and intense exercise carry risks.
Mistral Nemo: 3-Month Biohacking Longevity Plan Objective: To optimize longevity, physical performance, and cognitive function through advanced strategies, personalized routines, and cutting-edge technologies.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Mercury 2.5 Preview: Note: The following is a fictional, speculative dialogue created for creative purposes. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011; this interview did not occur. Setting: A hypothetical studio in Cupertino, 2025.
Mistral Nemo: Interviewer (I): Good afternoon, Mr. Jobs. It's an honor to have you here today, even if it is just a simulation. Let's dive right in. In 2025, what do you see as the most significant advancements in AI? Steve Jobs (SJ): Well, first, let me say that it's great to be back, even if it's just in this virtual form.
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
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.04/M tokens | $0.03/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.15/M tokens | $0.07/M tokens |
| Context window | 260K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | — | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Aug 2026 | Jul 2024 |
| At 10M a month | $0.40 | $0.30 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 13 Oct 2026.
Mercury 2.5 Preview is developed by Inception while Mistral Nemo is developed by Mistral AI. Mercury 2.5 Preview has a 260K token context window vs Mistral Nemo's 128K. 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 Nemo 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 Nemo costs $0.03/M input tokens. Mistral Nemo is $0.01/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 Nemo 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.