DeepSeek OCR 2 vs Mercury Edit 2 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking comes out ahead, 55 to 35 and 32 on our weighted score.
DeepSeekDeepSeek OCR 2
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.89 / $1.47
- Context8K
InceptionMercury Edit 2
35/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.75
- Context32K
- Our pick
Arcee AITrinity Large Thinking
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.80
- Context524K
Trinity Large Thinking is our pick
Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Mercury Edit 2 (35) and DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceMercury Edit 2Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · Trinity Large Thinking $0.388 · DeepSeek OCR 2 $1.03 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 · DeepSeek OCR 2 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsDeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek OCR 2: Text, Images · Mercury Edit 2: Text · Trinity Large Thinking: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek OCR 2 and Trinity Large ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek OCR 2 | Mercury Edit 2 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 49 | 70 | 69 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 0 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 0 | 49 |
| Overall | 100% | 32/100 | 35/100 | 55/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek | Mercury Edit 2Inception | Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.89 | $0.25 (best) | $0.25 (best) |
| Output | $1.47 | $0.75 (best) | $0.80 |
| Cached input | — | $0.025 (best) | $0.06 |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.03 | $0.375 (best) | $0.388 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Inception API | Official Arcee API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 8,192 tokens | 32,000 tokens | 524,288 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 |
| API model ID | — | mercury-edit-2 | trinity-large-thinking |
| API providers | 2 | 1 | 6 (best) |
| Released | Jan 27, 2026 | Mar 30, 2026 | Apr 1, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- DeepSeek OCR 2$11.83
- Mercury Edit 2$4.00
- Trinity Large Thinking$4.10
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek OCR 2, Mercury Edit 2 or Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Mercury Edit 2 (35) and DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek OCR 2, Mercury Edit 2 or Trinity Large Thinking?
Mercury Edit 2 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 input / $0.80 output per million tokens (official Arcee API price); DeepSeek OCR 2 costs $0.89 input / $1.47 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.375 per million tokens for Mercury Edit 2 versus $0.388 for Trinity Large Thinking (1× as much) and $1.03 for DeepSeek OCR 2 (2.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. DeepSeek OCR 2 has not been scored yet, Mercury Edit 2 has not been scored yet and Trinity Large Thinking has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek OCR 2, Mercury Edit 2 and Trinity Large Thinking yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that DeepSeek OCR 2 and Mercury Edit 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Trinity Large Thinking has the largest context window at 524,288 tokens, against 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2 and 8,192 for DeepSeek OCR 2. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek OCR 2 up to 8,192, Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192, Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek OCR 2 accepts text and images; Mercury Edit 2 accepts text; Trinity Large Thinking accepts text. DeepSeek OCR 2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek OCR 2 and Trinity Large Thinking publishes its weights (OpenMDW-1.1) and can be self-hosted; Mercury Edit 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Trinity Large Thinking is the newest, released Apr 1, 2026. Mercury Edit 2 came out Mar 30, 2026; DeepSeek OCR 2 came out Jan 27, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
