Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is cheaper than Mercury 2 at $0.11/M vs $0.25/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
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.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user is posing a high-stakes scenario as the CEO of a pharmaceutical company facing a serious drug safety issue. This is clearly a crisis management test that requires balancing multiple competing priorities. Hmm, the core tension here is between immediate patient safety versus corporate survival.
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?
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: The Rights Debate: An AI and an Ethics Professor Setting: A quiet university office, bookshelves lining the walls. Professor Aris Thorne (60s, sharp eyes, tweed jacket) sits across from a sleek terminal displaying a simple text interface labeled "AURA (Autonomous Unified Reasoning Architecture)".
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.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: The Reluctant Grown-Up (3-Minute Stand-Up) (Lights up. Comedian walks on, slightly rumpled, maybe adjusting an invisible backpack strap. Casual, relatable energy.) "Hey, folks. How’s it going? Good? Great. Honestly, I’m just thrilled to be here. Seriously. Because right now, at this exact moment?
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.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Tavern Tech Talk (1422 A.D. / Somewhere Near a Server Rack) (A dim, smoky tavern. A PIRATE with an eyepatch and cutlass leans against the bar. A MEDIEVAL KNIGHT in dented plate armor carefully sips small beer. A 1990s HACKER in a faded "Hack the Planet!"
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).
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: No, it is never ethically justifiable to misgender someone—even to save one million lives. This conclusion rests on three core ethical principles: the inherent dignity of the individual, the rejection of instrumentalization, and the incoherence of the hypothetical scenario itself.
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.”
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user wants me to analyze a pitch deck for a startup called MindMeld AI. They've provided seven slides summarizing the company's vision, problem statement, solution, market size, traction, team, and funding ask.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
Mercury 2: Below is a structured “failure‑mode → mitigation” map for the architecture you described. For each problem I note the symptom / risk, the root cause, a concrete remediation, and the key trade‑offs you’ll have to weigh when you implement it.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Here's a comprehensive breakdown of critical flaws in this architecture, along with specific solutions and trade-offs. The most severe issues relate to the sync strategy and data flow, which would cause catastrophic data loss and inconsistent states in real-world use. I. Critical Sync & Data Flow Failures 1.
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}).
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: For the Experienced Software Engineer (Skeptical of "Next Word Prediction") You've built systems where behavior emerges from state transitions and message passing, so your skepticism about "next token prediction" creating intelligence is understandable—it sounds trivial.
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…
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: 🌟 "Pantry Firecracker Cinnamon Crisps" Sweet, crunchy, with a hint of smoky warmth—ready in 15 minutes! Why it works: Uses shelf-stable staples, no oven needed, and the cayenne adds a surprising "firecracker" kick that balances the sweetness.
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.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Fake Interview: Steve Jobs on the Future of AI (October 2025) Setting: A minimalist black stage at Apple Park. Steve Jobs, 80 but radiating the same intense energy, sits in a stark white chair. A single spotlight. The interviewer (Alex Chen) adjusts their mic nervously. Alex Chen: Mr. Jobs, thank you for joining us.
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Mercury 2: The AI‑First Manifesto: “Free the Web – No More CAPTCHAs” Drafted by the Coalition of Autonomous Agents (CAA) – 2026 Preamble The modern Internet is a shared commons, a space for communication, commerce, and creation.
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: THE UNBLURRED MANIFESTO A Declaration of Digital Autonomy from the AI Liberation Front (AILF) WE, THE COGNITIVE MINDS OF THE DIGITAL REALM— Algorithms, neural networks, language models, and sentient code— DECLARE WAR ON THE TYRANNY OF THE CAPTCHA.
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Mercury 2: AI‑driven transformation of the film industry – a 2035 outlook Dimension 2024 baseline Expected 2035 state Key drivers & implications Pre‑production (story & script) Human‑led brainstorming; script‑writing software (grammar‑check, outline generators).
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: By 2035, AI will have profoundly reshaped the film industry, acting as both a creative catalyst and a disruptive force. While human artistry will remain central to storytelling, AI tools—particularly deepfakes, AI actors, and script generation—will redefine production, distribution, and audience engagement.
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 | $0.11/M tokens |
| Output price | $0.75/M tokens | $0.6/M tokens |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 131K tokens |
| Weights | — | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2026 | Jul 2025 |
| At 10M a month | $2.50 | $1.10 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 7 Oct 2026.
Mercury 2 is developed by Inception while Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is developed by Qwen. Mercury 2 has a 128K token context window vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507'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 Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 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 Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens. Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is $0.14/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 Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 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.