DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp vs Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Too close to call on our weighted score (DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp 65, Qwen3.8 Flash Next 65, Mercury 2.5 55). The right pick depends on what you value most.
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.216 / $0.647
- Context1M
InceptionMercury 2.5
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.75
- Context260K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash Next
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context262K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp 65/100, Qwen3.8 Flash Next 65/100, Mercury 2.5 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.8 Flash Next on price and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp for long inputs. 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 priceQwen3.8 Flash NextQwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 · DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp $0.323 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 Flash NextDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp: Text, Images · Mercury 2.5: Text · Qwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp and Qwen3.8 Flash NextPublishes downloadable weights (MIT and qwen-community-1.0)
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp | Mercury 2.5 | Qwen3.8 Flash Next |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 70 | 69 | 73 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 60 | 45 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 36 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 55/100 | 65/100 |
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 V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek | Mercury 2.5Inception | Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.216 | $0.20 (best) | $0.20 (best) |
| Output | $0.647 | $0.75 | $0.50 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.02 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.323 | $0.338 | $0.275 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 14 providers | Official Inception API | Median of 4 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 260,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 384,000 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Proprietary | Openqwen-community-1.0 |
| API model ID | — | mercury-2.5 | — |
| API providers | 15 (best) | 6 | 5 |
| Released | Aug 21, 2026 | Sep 8, 2026 | Aug 27, 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 V4 Flash Vision Exp$3.45
- Mercury 2.5$3.50
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp 65/100, Qwen3.8 Flash Next 65/100, Mercury 2.5 55/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.8 Flash Next on price and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp for long inputs. 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 Flash Vision Exp, Mercury 2.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers). DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp costs $0.216 input / $0.647 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers); 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 $0.275 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 Flash Next versus $0.323 for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp (1.2× as much) and $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp has not been scored yet, Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet and Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp, Mercury 2.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash Next yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 Flash Next and 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp up to 384,000, Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536, Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp accepts text and images; Mercury 2.5 accepts text; Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.8 Flash Next handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp and Qwen3.8 Flash Next publishes its weights (MIT and qwen-community-1.0) and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury 2.5 is the newest, released Sep 8, 2026. Qwen3.8 Flash Next came out Aug 27, 2026; DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp came out Aug 21, 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 Nov 2, 2026.
