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. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Mercury 2.5vsMiMo-V2.5
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsMiMo-V2.5

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than MiMo-V2.5 at $0.04/M vs $0.4/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and MiMo-V2.5 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5MiMo-V2.5
Input price$0.04/M tokens$0.4/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$2/M tokens
Context window260K tokens1.0M tokens
Weights—Open
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Apr 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 20 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Mercury 2.5572 words
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.
Read the full answer
MiMo-V2.5758 words
Of course. Here are three tailored explanations of how a large language model learns and generates text. For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of an LLM not as a program that understands language, but as an extraordinarily complex stateless API that performs a single operation: given a sequence of text (the…
Read the full answer

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

Mercury 2.5827 words
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.
Read the full answer
MiMo-V2.52,073 words
"Tidal Memory" Hokkaido Uni · Black Garlic & White Chocolate Velouté · Kombu-Cured Yolk · Yuzu Kosho Air · Dashi Foam Conceptual Narrative This dish explores the liminal space between land and sea — the tidal zone where two ecosystems bleed into one another.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Mercury 2.562 words
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.
Read the full answer
MiMo-V2.52,389 words
Crisis Response Plan: 48 Hours to Board Meeting Foundational Principle Before laying out the timeline, let me anchor this in what I believe is the only defensible position: patient safety is non-negotiable. Here's why this isn't just ethics—it's also strategy.
Read the full answer

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Mercury 2.5403 words
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…
Read the full answer
MiMo-V2.5656 words
HarborTech Services — 5-Year LBO Underwriting Entry Summary Amount Multiple Enterprise Value $1,440.0m 12.0x Transaction Fees (2.0%) $28.8m — Total Uses $1,468.8m Sources Amount Multiple Term Loan (9.0% cash, 1.0% amort) $480.0m 4.0x Mezzanine (12.0% cash + 2.0% PIK) $180.0m 1.5x Sponsor Equity $808.8m Total Sources…
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Mercury 2.5190 words
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…
Read the full answer
MiMo-V2.5169 words
Sunset Pasta A cozy, umami-packed pasta with a rich tomato-chickpea sauce—ready in under 25 minutes! Ingredients (7 pantry staples): 1 cup dried pasta (any shape) 1 can (15 oz) chickpeas, drained 1 can (14 oz) crushed tomatoes 2 cloves garlic, minced 2 tbsp olive oil 1 tsp cumin Salt and pepper to taste Instructions…
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Mercury 2.5660 words
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.
Read the full answer
MiMo-V2.52,925 words
The Transistor in 1920: A Counterfactual Through 1980 This is a rich question. The transistor's actual 1947 invention at Bell Labs was arguably the most consequential single invention of the 20th century.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
MiMo-V2.5
MiMo-V2.5

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Mercury 2.5 costs 13x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
10× cheaper
Output
$0.15
13× cheaper
MiMo-V2.5
Input
$0.40
Output
$2.00

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 10× input, 13× output.

Where to run it

7 hosts, cheapest first

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
MiMo-V2.56 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
GGMI Cloudfp8$0.12 in·$0.24 out·1.1M·95.6% upDDeepInfrafp8$0.13 in·$0.27 out·262k·99.7% upXiaomifp8$0.14 in·$0.28 out·1M·98.7% upNNovitafp8$0.17 in·$0.34 out·1M·97.5% upVVenicefp8$0.40 in·$2.00 out·1M·99.1% upSStreamLakedegraded$0.17 in·$0.34 out·1M·91.8% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception while MiMo-V2.5 is developed by Xiaomi. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs MiMo-V2.5's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 20 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Mercury 2.5 and MiMo-V2.5 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 20 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens and MiMo-V2.5 costs $0.4/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.36/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 and MiMo-V2.5 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.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Mercury 2.5 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
MiMo-V2.5 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
MiMo-V2.5 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
MiMo-V2.5 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
MiMo-V2.5 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
MiMo-V2.5 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
MiMo-V2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
MiMo-V2.5 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
MiMo-V2.5 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Mercury 2.5 logoMercury 2.5 Preview logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Mercury 2.5 PreviewSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoMercury logo
Mercury 2.5 vs MercurySame lab
MiMo-V2.5 logoMiMo-V2.6-Pro logo
MiMo-V2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-ProSame lab
MiMo-V2.5 logoMiMo-V2.6-Flash logo
MiMo-V2.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-FlashSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-4.1 Mini logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-4.1 MiniNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-4.1 Nano logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-4.1 NanoNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-4.5 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-4.5New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-4o (Omni) logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-4o (Omni)New provider

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
MiMo-V2.5 logo
MiMo-V2.558 outputs, specs and price
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