Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 comes out ahead, 71 to 65 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Fin
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
- Our pick
InceptionMercury 2.5
71/100- ECI—
- Price$0.04 / $0.15
- Context260K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Mercury 2.5 is our pick
Mercury 2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (65). It leads on price and inputs & features. 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 · Ling 3.0 Flash Fin $0.111 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameLing 3.0 Flash Fin 262,144 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.0 Flash Fin: Text · Mercury 2.5: Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash Fin | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 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 | Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAI | Mercury 2.5Inception |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.075 | $0.04 (best) |
| Output | $0.22 | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.004 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 | $0.068 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Inception API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 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 | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | mercury-2.5 |
| API providers | 2 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Aug 27, 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.
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin$1.19
- Mercury 2.5$0.70
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 71/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (65). It leads on price and inputs & features. 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, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.068 per million tokens for Mercury 2.5 versus $0.111 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 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?
Their context windows are effectively the same size: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 262,144 and Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin up to 32,768, Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts text; Mercury 2.5 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
No. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Mercury 2.5 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Mercury 2.5 is the newest, released Sep 8, 2026. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin came out Aug 27, 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 Laguna S 2.1Three-way comparison
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Laguna S 2.1Poolside
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Gemma 4 12B ITGoogle
- Mercury 2.5 vs Laguna XS 2.1Poolside
- Mercury 2.5 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Mercury 2.5 vs Gemma 4 E2B ITGoogle
