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 2.5vsNex-N2.5-Pro (free)
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsNex-N2.5-Pro (free)

Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) is cheaper than Mercury 2.5 at $0/M vs $0.04/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)
Input price$0.04/M tokensFree
Output price$0.15/M tokensFree
Context window260K tokens262K tokens
Free API (OpenRouter)NoYes (1 provider)
ReleasedSep 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 14 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

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
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)119 words
Pantry Moon Bars A sweet, chewy peanut butter–chocolate oat treat made with only 7 pantry staples. Ingredients Rolled oats Creamy peanut butter Honey Chocolate chips Vanilla extract Ground cinnamon Salt Instructions Heat oven to 350°F / 175°C. Line an 8-inch square pan with parchment paper.
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
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)1,665 words
Dish: “Tidewater Orchard” Langoustine · Mirabelle Plum · Juniper · Kombu · Rye A tasting-menu course built around an unusual pairing: sweet cold-water langoustine with mirabelle plum, bridged by kombu umami, juniper resin, green tomato acidity, and toasted rye bitterness.
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
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)2,451 words
Below is a general contract-risk review, not legal advice. Enforceability depends heavily on jurisdiction, contractor classification, and the exact facts. Also, even if a clause might be unenforceable, relying on that is risky because litigation/arbitration is expensive.
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
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)593 words
The 3 weakest claims are the ones most likely to be challenged in diligence: Weakest claim Why it’s weak How to strengthen it 1. “94% accuracy… works with any language, any device.” This is the biggest scientific and product credibility risk.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Mercury 2.5672 words
Critical Analysis of Collaborative Editor Architecture Below is a detailed breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs.
Read the full answer
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)3,042 words
Executive summary The biggest correctness risks are: Client-clock last-write-wins is unsafe: clock skew, malicious clients, ties, and out-of-order delivery can silently lose edits.
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
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)2,726 words
Starting assumption Assume the 1920 “transistor” is a usable but crude solid-state amplifier/switch: reproducible enough for telecom and radio, but noisy, low-power, temperature-sensitive, and expensive at first.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)

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

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Mercury 2.5
Input
$0.04
Output
$0.15
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)
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
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
NNex AGIfp8$0 in·$0 out·262k·99.4% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 22 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception while Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) is developed by Nex AGI. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)'s 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 14 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Mercury 2.5 and Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 14 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens and Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) costs $0/M input tokens. Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) 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 Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) 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
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) 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
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) logoNex-N2.5-Mini (free) logo
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) vs Nex-N2.5-Mini (free)Same lab
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) logoOx Alpha logo
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) vs Ox AlphaSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoClaude 3 Haiku logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Claude 3 HaikuNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoClaude 3 Sonnet logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Claude 3 SonnetSame size
Mercury 2.5 logoClaude Sonnet 3.6 (2022-10-22) logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Claude Sonnet 3.6 (2022-10-22)Same size
Mercury 2.5 logoClaude 3.7 Sonnet logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Claude 3.7 SonnetSame size

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free) logo
Nex-N2.5-Pro (free)14 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