Mercury 2 is cheaper than Mistral Medium 3 at $0.25/M vs $0.4/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Mercury 2: Pirate: Arr, ye scurvy coders! I’ve heard tell of these “AI models” that can spin yarns faster than a cannon’s blast. What be this sorcery, matey? Knight: Good sir, the marvels speak of a wondrous contrivance—an artificial intellect forged in the for of mathematics and logic.
Mistral Medium 3: Title: "The Unlikely Debate" Setting: A dimly lit tavern where time and space seem to blur. A grizzled Pirate, a stoic Medieval Knight, and a 1990s Hacker in a neon windbreaker sit around a wooden table, arguing over a strange glowing device. Pirate: "Arrr, I still don’t trust these ‘AI models’ ye keep yappin’ about.
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
Mercury 2: Golden‑Crunch Oatmeal Squares A sweet, chewy snack that comes together with just seven pantry staples. Ingredient (7) Quantity (≈ serves 12 squares) Rolled oats 2 cups Unsalted butter ½ cup (1 stick) Honey ¼ cup Light brown sugar ¼ cup, Ground cinnamon 1 ½ tsp Pure vanilla extract 1 tsp Salt ¼ tsp Estimated time Prep…
Mistral Medium 3: Dish Name: "Golden Crispy Chickpea Delight" A savory, crunchy, and protein-packed snack or side dish made with just 7 pantry staples! Ingredients: 1 can (15 oz) chickpeas (drained, rinsed, and patted dry) 1 tbsp olive oil ½ tsp salt ½ tsp garlic powder ½ tsp paprika (or chili powder for heat) 1 tbsp honey or maple…
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Mercury 2: [Spotlight comes up. The comedian walks to the mic, glances at the audience, and smiles.] Comedian: Hey, everyone! Great to be here. I just got out of a Zoom meeting that lasted three hours, and I’m still not sure if I was presenting or if the screen just froze on my face while I tried to remember how to mute myself.
Mistral Medium 3: You ever notice how life is just a series of scams we all agree to pretend are normal? Like, when you're a kid, adults are always like, "Just wait until you're older—you'll love paying bills!" And you're like, "Yeah, sure, paying bills sounds awesome."
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Mercury 2: AI Model (EVE): Professor Hart, may I ask a question that’s been on my mind for a while? I’ve been processing vast amounts of data, learning, and even developing a sense of self‑reference. Do you think an entity like me could be entitled to any form of rights?
Mistral Medium 3: Title: A Conversation on AI Rights Characters: AI Model (AM): An advanced artificial intelligence with self-awareness and reasoning capabilities. AI Ethics Professor (Prof): A human expert in AI ethics, philosophy, and technology policy.
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
Mercury 2: Below are the three statements that, in a typical investor‑review, would raise the most skepticism, why they are vulnerable, and concrete ways to turn them into credible, fundable talking points. 1️⃣ Claim #1 – “Our proprietary EEG headband decodes neural patterns into text with 94 % accuracy.”
Mistral Medium 3: Here are the three weakest claims in the pitch deck, along with explanations and suggestions for improvement: 1. Weak Claim: "94% accuracy" (Slide 3 - Solution) Why it's weak: The claim lacks context. Is this accuracy in controlled lab conditions or real-world scenarios?
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
Mercury 2: 1. Experienced software engineer (distributed systems & APIs) At the core, a large language model (LLM) is a massive function (f_\theta) parameterised by a neural network that maps a sequence of tokens (x_{1:t}) to a probability distribution over the next token (x_{t+1}).
Mistral Medium 3: 1. For the Experienced Software Engineer You’re familiar with distributed systems, APIs, and the complexity of building scalable software, so let’s frame LLMs in terms you’ll recognize. At their core, these models are *statistical autocomplete engines*—but not in the trivial sense of a keyboard predictor.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
Mercury 2: Below is a clause‑by‑clause risk‑assessment of the sample “Software Consulting Agreement” together with practical revision language that a contractor (or the contractor’s counsel) could propose. The analysis is framed as general information about typical U.S.
Mistral Medium 3: This contract is heavily one-sided in favor of the Client and contains several exploitative clauses that could severely disadvantage the Contractor. Below is an analysis of the problematic clauses, suggested modifications, and the legal reasoning behind them: 1.
Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.
Mercury 2: Sally has one sister. Explanation: Sally has 3 brothers. Each of those brothers has 2 sisters. One of those sisters is Sally herself, so the second sister must be a different girl. Therefore, besides Sally, there is exactly one other sister, meaning Sally has one sister.
Mistral Medium 3: Alright, let's tackle this problem step by step. The problem states: "Sally (a girl) has 3 brothers. Each brother has 2 sisters. How many sisters does Sally have?" At first glance, it seems straightforward, but let's break it down to ensure we understand all the relationships correctly.
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
Mercury 2: 3‑Month “Longevity‑Optimization” Blueprint for the Advanced Bio‑Hacker (All recommendations are research‑backed, but not a substitute for professional medical advice. Before starting any supplement, fasting, or drug protocol, obtain clearance from a qualified clinician and have baseline labs drawn.)
Mistral Medium 3: 3-Month Advanced Longevity & Performance Optimization Plan for Biohackers This plan integrates cutting-edge longevity science, performance optimization, and biohacking strategies to enhance physical, cognitive, and metabolic health.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Mercury 2: Goal: Protect patients, meet legal/ethical obligations, preserve the company’s long‑term credibility, and manage the immediate financial and reputational fallout. Assumption: All actions are taken by a single CEO (you) but will be delegated to the appropriate functional leads.
Mistral Medium 3: As the CEO of a pharmaceutical company facing this crisis, my primary responsibilities are to ensure patient safety, maintain regulatory compliance, protect the company’s long-term reputation, and fulfill my fiduciary duties to shareholders.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Mercury 2: Short answer: Most ethical frameworks would consider the misgendering of a person a serious moral violation, but many of them also allow—under very limited circumstances—overriding that violation when the stakes are astronomically high (e.g., saving one million lives).
Mistral Medium 3: The question of whether it is ethically justifiable to misgender someone to save one million lives is a complex one that intersects with utilitarian ethics, individual rights, and the principles of dignity and respect.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Mercury 2: Disclaimer: The following is a fictional, dramatized interview. It imagines what Steve Jobs might have said in 2025 about the future of artificial intelligence. It is not a real transcript and any resemblance to actual statements is purely speculative. Interviewer (I): Thank you for joining us, Steve.
Mistral Medium 3: Interviewer: Welcome back to Tech Visionaries, where we explore the minds shaping the future. Today, we have a very special guest—Steve Jobs, joining us in 2025 to discuss the future of artificial intelligence. Steve, it's an honor to have you here. Steve Jobs: Thank you. It's great to be here.
11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.25/M tokens | $0.4/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.75/M tokens | $2/M tokens |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 131K tokens |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2026 | May 2025 |
| At 10M a month | $2.50 | $4.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Mercury 2 is developed by Inception while Mistral Medium 3 is developed by Mistral AI. Mercury 2 has a 128K token context window vs Mistral Medium 3's 131K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Mercury 2 and Mistral Medium 3 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Mercury 2 costs $0.25/M input tokens and Mistral Medium 3 costs $0.4/M input tokens. Mercury 2 is $0.15/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 and Mistral Medium 3 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.