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 2.5vsQwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsQwen3.8 2.4T A95B

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B at $0.04/M vs $2/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B compared across 20 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Input price$0.04/M tokens$2/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$6/M tokens
Context window260K tokens1.0M tokens
Weights—Open
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Aug 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

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

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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B4,865 words
Premise: what changes, and what does not Assume the transistor is invented in 1920 in a form roughly comparable to the late-1940s germanium point-contact or early junction transistor: it can amplify, detect, and switch signals, but it is initially expensive, low-yield, low-power, and limited in frequency.
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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B2,994 words
Cliff Nest Koji-Aged Squab, Sea Urchin, Rhubarb, Black Garlic Yield: 4 tasting portions Style: Contemporary fine-dining main course Key unusual pairing: Koji-aged pigeon/squab with sea urchin, bridged by rhubarb acidity and black-garlic depth Conceptual Narrative Cliff Nest imagines a coastal nesting site in early…
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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B6,649 words
This agreement is heavily one-sided and, as drafted, gives the Client multiple ways to extract value from the Contractor while minimizing its own obligations. Some provisions may be unenforceable or limited by law in certain jurisdictions, but even unenforceable clauses can be exploited commercially because the…
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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B892 words
Entry capitalization All figures in $m unless noted. FY2025 EBITDA = $120.0 Entry EV = 12.0x × $120.0 = $1,440.0 Transaction fees = 2.0% × $1,440.0 = $28.8 Term Loan = 4.0x × $120.0 = $480.0 Mezzanine = 1.5x × $120.0 = $180.0 Equity = EV + fees – debt = $1,440.0 + $28.8 – $660.0 = $808.8 Sources & Uses Uses $m 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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B166 words
Lighthouse Lemon-Garlic Tuna Pasta A savory, pantry-friendly pasta that’s bright, garlicky, and satisfying. 7 Pantry Ingredients 8 oz spaghetti or linguine 3 tablespoons olive oil 3 garlic cloves, thinly sliced 2 cans tuna, drained 2 tablespoons lemon juice ½ teaspoon red pepper flakes ½ teaspoon salt Water for boiling…
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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B1,709 words
The three weakest claims are the ones most likely to collapse under investor diligence: “before you think it,” “94% accuracy… any language, any device,” and the $180B TAM claim. They are weak because they are either scientifically implausible, under-specified, or logically inconsistent with the market evidence cited.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window.

Mercury 2.5 costs 40x 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
50× cheaper
Output
$0.15
40× cheaper
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Input
$2.00
Output
$6.00

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 50× input, 40× output.

Where to run it

8 hosts

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·100% up
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B7 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·99.9% upDDeepInfrafp4$2.00 in·$6.00 out·262k·99.9% upModal$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·100% upNNovita$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·99.9% upSSiliconFlowfp8$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·100% upTTogether$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·100% up
1 more hostFewer hosts
VVenice$2.00 in·$6.00 out·262k·96.7% 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B'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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $1.96/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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoHy3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoQwen3.8 27B logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.8 27BVersion compare
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Mercury 2.5 logoKimi K2 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoKimi K2 0905 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2 0905New provider
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

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B58 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