ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Mercury 2.5

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 comes out ahead, 70 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    DeepSeek

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

    Released Oct 17, 2026New

    70/100
    • ECI158.8
    • Price$0.15 / $0.60
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

  2. Inception

    Mercury 2.5

    Released Sep 8, 2026New

    55/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.20 / $0.75
    • Context260K
    Full specs Remove Mercury 2.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is our pick

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price, 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 priceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images · Mercury 2.5: Text
  • Self-hostingDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Publishes downloadable weights (MIT)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Mercury 2.5
Price50%7469
Inputs & features30%7045
Context window20%6036
Overall100%70/10055/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Mercury 2.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeekMercury 2.5Inception
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)158.8—
ECI rank#19 of 165—
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions93.2%—
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics71.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics99.4%—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions42.5%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.15 (best)$0.20
Output$0.60 (best)$0.75
Cached input$0.003 (best)$0.02
Blended (3:1)$0.263 (best)$0.338
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial DeepSeek APIOfficial Inception API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens (best)260,000 tokens
Max output384,000 tokens (best)65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYeslow · high · maxYeslow · medium · high
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenMITProprietary
API model IDdeepseek-flashmercury-2.5
API providers40 (best)6
ReleasedOct 17, 2026Sep 8, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMay 2025—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$2.70
  • Mercury 2.5$3.50
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Mercury 2.5?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price, 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 V4.1 Flash 1017 or Mercury 2.5?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). Mercury 2.5 costs $0.20 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 versus $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (1.3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has an ECI of 158.8 and Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Mercury 2.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000, Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images; Mercury 2.5 accepts text. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the newest, released Oct 17, 2026. Mercury 2.5 came out Sep 8, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 May 2025.

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 Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons