Laguna S 2.1 vs Mercury 2.5
Too close to call on our weighted score (Mercury 2.5 71, Laguna S 2.1 69). The right pick depends on what you value most.
PoolsideLaguna S 2.1
69/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context1.05M
InceptionMercury 2.5
71/100- ECI—
- Price$0.04 / $0.15
- Context260K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Mercury 2.5 71/100, Laguna S 2.1 69/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury 2.5 on price and Laguna S 2.1 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 priceMercury 2.5Mercury 2.5 $0.068 · Laguna S 2.1 $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLaguna S 2.1Laguna S 2.1 1,048,576 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLaguna S 2.1: Text · Mercury 2.5: Text
- Self-hostingLaguna S 2.1Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Laguna S 2.1 | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 93 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 69/100 | 71/100 |
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 | Laguna S 2.1Poolside | Mercury 2.5Inception |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.04 (best) |
| Output | $0.20 | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.004 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.125 | $0.068 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 4 providers | Official Inception API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 260,000 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | poolside/laguna-s-2.1 | mercury-2.5 |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Jul 21, 2026 | Sep 8, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Nov 1, 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Laguna S 2.1$1.40
- Mercury 2.5$0.70
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Laguna S 2.1 or Mercury 2.5?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Mercury 2.5 71/100, Laguna S 2.1 69/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury 2.5 on price and Laguna S 2.1 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, Laguna S 2.1 or Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Laguna S 2.1 costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers; free on Poolside). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.068 per million tokens for Mercury 2.5 versus $0.125 for Laguna S 2.1 (1.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Laguna S 2.1 has not been scored yet and Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Laguna S 2.1 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?
Laguna S 2.1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: Laguna S 2.1 up to 32,768, Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Laguna S 2.1 accepts text; Mercury 2.5 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Laguna S 2.1 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury 2.5 is the newest, released Sep 8, 2026. Laguna S 2.1 came out Jul 21, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Mercury 2.5 Nov 1, 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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemma 4 12B ITThree-way comparison
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Gemma 4 12B ITGoogle
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAI
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Seed CharacterByteDance Seed
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Mercury 2.5 vs Laguna XS 2.1Poolside
- Mercury 2.5 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
