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 2.5vsSolar Mini 4
Updated Sep 2026

Mercury 2.5vsSolar Mini 4

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper than Solar Mini 4 at $0.04/M vs $0.05/M input tokens.

Mercury 2.5 and Solar Mini 4 compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecMercury 2.5Solar Mini 4
Input price$0.04/M tokens$0.05/M tokens
Output price$0.15/M tokens$0.2/M tokens
Context window260K tokens524K tokens
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

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
Solar Mini 41,718 words
518.51935 New TL: 276.34682 - 86.82747 = 189.51935 Mezz: PIK 194.8377888 * 0.02 = 3.896755776 New Mezz: 194.8377888 + 3.896755776 = 198.734544576 Ending Balances: TL: 189.52 Mezz: 198.73 Total Debt: 388.25 Exit (End of FY2030): Exit EBITDA: 206.6252668 Exit Multiple: 10.5x Exit EV: 206.6252668 * 10.5 = 2,169.5653014…
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
Solar Mini 41,539 words
This is a fascinating counterfactual. I need to note upfront that the scientific and engineering foundations for a working transistor did not exist in 1920. Quantum mechanics was barely a decade old, band theory of solids hadn't been developed, and semiconductor physics (doping, p-n junctions, electron mobility) was…
Read the full answer

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
Solar Mini 4893 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer From a systems architecture perspective, the skepticism that "predicting the next word" yields intelligence is understandable, but it stems from viewing the model through a deterministic, code-based lens rather than a probabilistic, distributed-systems lens.
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
Solar Mini 41,364 words
Chronos & Tides A Three-Component Study in Preservation, Precision, and Ephemeral Sensation Concept: A single plate that traces the lifecycle of an umami-rich flavor profile through three distinct temporal states: fermented (time in), precision-cooked (time controlled), and volatile (time suspended).
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
Solar Mini 4266 words
🌟 Golden Chickpea & Rice Skillet This comforting one-pot dish combines hearty chickpeas, tender rice, and a warm blend of spices. It's a perfect way to use up pantry staples for a quick, flavorful meal.
Read the full answer

Beginner's Longevity Plan

Outline a simple, actionable 1-month plan for someone starting their journey towards better health and longevity. Focus on 3 key areas…

Mercury 2.5325 words
Here is a simple, actionable 1-month plan to kickstart your journey toward better health and longevity. This guide focuses on three foundational pillars: Nutrition, Movement, and Sleep. Week 1: Awareness & Small Wins Goal: Build habits without overwhelming yourself.
Read the full answer
Solar Mini 4669 words
Here is a simple, actionable 1-month plan designed for beginners. The focus is on consistency over intensity, meaning small, sustainable changes are better than drastic overhauls that are hard to maintain. The 3 Key Pillars Nutrition: Focus on adding good things rather than strictly restricting.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5
Solar Mini 4
Solar Mini 4

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

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
1.3× cheaper
Output
$0.15
1.3× cheaper
Solar Mini 4
Input
$0.05
Output
$0.20

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper on both: 1.3× input, 1.3× output.

Where to run it

2 hosts

Mercury 2.51 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Inception$0.04 in·$0.15 out·260k·99.9% up
Solar Mini 41 host
HostInOutContextUptime
UUpstage$0.05 in·$0.20 out·524k·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Mercury 2.5 is developed by Inception while Solar Mini 4 is developed by Upstage. Mercury 2.5 has a 260K token context window vs Solar Mini 4's 524K. You can compare their actual outputs across 19 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Mercury 2.5 and Solar Mini 4 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 19 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04/M input tokens and Solar Mini 4 costs $0.05/M input tokens. Mercury 2.5 is $0.01/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 Solar Mini 4 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 logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Solar Mini 4 logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
Solar Mini 4 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Solar Mini 4 logoCommand A+ logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoClaude Opus 5.5 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
Solar Mini 4 logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Solar Mini 4 vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026
Solar Mini 4 logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Solar Mini 4 vs GPT-6 LunaLanded 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
Solar Mini 4 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Solar Pro 4Same lab
Solar Mini 4 logoSolar Pro 3 logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Solar Pro 3Same lab
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-5.3-Codex logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-5.3-CodexNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-5.4 logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-5.4New provider
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-5.4 Mini logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-5.4 MiniNew provider
Mercury 2.5 logoGPT-5.4 Nano logo
Mercury 2.5 vs GPT-5.4 NanoNew provider

Model pages

Mercury 2.5 logo
Mercury 2.520 outputs, specs and price
Solar Mini 4 logo
Solar Mini 419 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