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 2.5vsNemotron 3 Ultra
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsNemotron 3 Ultra

Nemotron 3 Ultra is cheaper than Mercury 2.5 at $0/M vs $0.04/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Nemotron 3 Ultra compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Nemotron 3 Ultra
Input price$0.04/M tokensFree
Output price$0.15/M tokensFree
Context window260K tokens1.0M tokens
Weights—Open
Free API (OpenRouter)NoYes (1 provider)
ReleasedSep 2026Jun 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
Nemotron 3 Ultra1,049 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of an LLM as a massively parallel, differentiable database where the "schema" is learned rather than designed. The transformer architecture is essentially a stack of attention blocks that route information across token positions — each block is a small, fixed computation…
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
Nemotron 3 Ultra1,810 words
This is a profound "hard takeoff" scenario. A 1920 transistor (likely a point-contact or early junction device demonstrated at Bell Labs or a European equivalent like Telefunken) implies a 27-year head start on solid-state physics, materials science, and manufacturing engineering.
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
Nemotron 3 Ultra1,516 words
Dish Title: Petrichor: The Memory of Dry Earth Meeting Rain Classification: Amuse-Bouche / Palate Awakener (Serves 1, scaled for service of 12) Conceptual Tier: Michelin 3-Star (Technique: Ultra-high precision, multi-sensory engagement, molecular architecture, zero-waste philosophy) I.
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Mercury 2.5501 words
Here is an analysis of the contract clauses that pose significant risk to the contractor, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning. Scope and Compensation (Clause 1) Risk: The client can expand the project indefinitely without paying extra.
Read the full answer
Nemotron 3 Ultra1,165 words
Disclaimer: I am not a licensed attorney. The following analysis is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract law varies significantly by jurisdiction, and the enforceability of specific clauses depends on applicable state/country law, public policy, and case precedent.
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
Nemotron 3 Ultra497 words
Dish Name: Golden Hour Chickpea Fritters Crispy, savory, and deeply golden—these come together in minutes using the "liquid gold" from the can (aquafaba) as the secret binder. No eggs, no fresh produce, pure pantry magic.
Read the full answer

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
Nemotron 3 Ultra1,225 words
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO – CONFIDENTIAL Ticker: LLLT Price: $46.00 Mkt Cap: $8.74B EV: $7.34B (8.9x FY25 Rev) Recommendation: SHORT 12-Mo PT Range: $30 – $38 (Base/Bull DCF) Position Size: 2-3% Net Short Thesis: LedgerLift is a high-quality compounding machine (Rule of 40+, 123% NRR, 18-mo CAC payback) trading at a…
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Nemotron 3 Ultra has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window.

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
Output
$0.15
Nemotron 3 Ultra
Input
$0.000
Output
$0.000
Where to run it

2 hosts

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Nemotron 3 Ultra1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
NVIDIA$0 in·$0 out·1M·99.5% 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 Nemotron 3 Ultra is developed by NVIDIA. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Nemotron 3 Ultra'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 Nemotron 3 Ultra 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 Nemotron 3 Ultra costs $0/M input tokens. Nemotron 3 Ultra is $0.04/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 Nemotron 3 Ultra 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
Nemotron 3 Ultra logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Nemotron 3 Ultra vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Nemotron 3 Ultra logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Nemotron 3 Ultra vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Nemotron 3 Ultra logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Nemotron 3 Ultra vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Nemotron 3 Ultra logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Nemotron 3 Ultra 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
Nemotron 3 Ultra logoNemotron 3 Nano Omni (free) logo
Nemotron 3 Ultra vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni (free)Same lab
Nemotron 3 Ultra logoNemotron 3.5 Lightning logo
Nemotron 3 Ultra vs Nemotron 3.5 LightningSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoRing 2.6 1T logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ring 2.6 1TNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoSeed 2.0 Code logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Seed 2.0 CodeSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoSeed 2.0 Lite logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Seed 2.0 LiteNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoSeed 2.1 Turbo logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Seed 2.1 TurboSame size

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Nemotron 3 Ultra logo
Nemotron 3 Ultra58 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