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 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.1
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.1

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Muse Spark 1.1 at $0.04/M vs $1.25/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Muse Spark 1.1
Input price$0.04/M tokens$1.25/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$4.25/M tokens
Context window260K tokens1.0M tokens
Weights—Closed
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Jul 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

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

Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

You are writing an internal investment committee memo for a long/short equity fund. Company (fictional): LedgerLift (ticker: LLLT) – B2B…

Mercury 2.5735 words
To: Investment Committee From: Equity Research Date: September 22, 2026 Subject: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Initiation of Coverage Recommendation & Thesis Recommendation: Long 12-Month Price Target: $55 – $68 Thesis: LedgerLift offers a rare combination of high-quality SaaS unit economics (NRR 123%, CAC payback 18mo) and…
Read the full answer
Muse Spark 1.1741 words
IC MEMO – LedgerLift (LLLT) Short – 12M PT $28 [Range: $17 Bear / $42 Bull] Price: $46 MCap $8.74B EV $7.34B [190m shares, $1.4B net cash] FY25 Rev $820m Thesis in 2 sentences: LLLT is a good mid-market spend/AP SaaS business with strong NRR, but priced for perfection at ~9.3x NTM rev / 37x NTM EBIT vs our Base DCF of…
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Mercury 2.5544 words
Based on the pitch deck summary, here are the three weakest claims, along with an analysis of their vulnerabilities and concrete suggestions for improvement. The "Pre-Thought" Prediction Claim Claim: "MindMeld AI reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it."
Read the full answer
Muse Spark 1.1817 words
Here are the 3 weakest claims in this deck — and they are the ones that would get you a pass from most serious investors: Slide 3 - Solution: "94% accuracy. Works with any language, any device." Why it's weak: This is a credibility killer. It contradicts everything we know about non-invasive BCI.
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
Muse Spark 1.11,740 words
If the transistor works in 1920 instead of 1947, you don't just get the modern world 27 years early. You get a fundamentally different 20th century. The transistor isn't just a better vacuum tube - it's the prerequisite for everything that needs to be small, reliable, low-power, and mass-producible.
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
Muse Spark 1.11,225 words
"NEIGE SUR LA VASIÈRE" — Snow on the Mudflat Koji-aged Jerusalem Artichoke, Hokkaido Bafun Uni Custard, Valrhona Ivoire & Kombu Ganache, Oscietra Caviar, Verbena I. THE CONCEPTUAL NARRATIVE This dish is a memory of foraging on the Brittany coast in late November. Low tide in winter.
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
Muse Spark 1.1358 words
Midnight in Naples - 20-Minute Pantry Pomodoro This is my go-to "I have nothing in the fridge" dinner. It's saucy, garlicky, cheesy, and tastes like you tried way harder than you did.
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
Muse Spark 1.11,465 words
As CEO, you have one job in the next 48 hours: protect patients while protecting the company's ability to continue serving patients. Those are not in conflict. Waiting is the highest-risk option on every dimension.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
Muse Spark 1.1
Muse Spark 1.1

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

Mercury 2.5 costs 28x 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
31× cheaper
Output
$0.15
28× cheaper
Muse Spark 1.1
Input
$1.25
Output
$4.25

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 31× input, 28× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Muse Spark 1.11 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Meta$1.25 in·$4.25 out·1M·100% 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 Muse Spark 1.1 is developed by Meta AI. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Muse Spark 1.1'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 Muse Spark 1.1 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 Muse Spark 1.1 costs $1.25/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $1.21/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 Muse Spark 1.1 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
Muse Spark 1.1 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Muse Spark 1.1 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Muse Spark 1.1 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Muse Spark 1.1 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Muse Spark 1.1 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
Muse Spark 1.1 logoMuse Spark 1.3 logo
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3Same lab
Muse Spark 1.1 logoMuse Spark 1.3 Contributor logo
Muse Spark 1.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3 ContributorSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoKimi K2 Thinking logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2 ThinkingNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoKimi K2.5 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2.5Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoKimi K2.6 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2.6Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoKimi K2.7 Code logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2.7 CodeNew provider

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Muse Spark 1.1 logo
Muse Spark 1.158 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