Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Mercury 2.5
Ling 3.0 Flash VL comes out ahead, 76 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash VL
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
InceptionMercury 2.5
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.75
- Context260K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is our pick
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). 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 priceLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL $0.09 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameLing 3.0 Flash VL 262,144 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL: Text, Images, Video · Mercury 2.5: Text
- Self-hostingLing 3.0 Flash VLPublishes downloadable weights (MIT)
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 69 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 76/100 | 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 | Ling 3.0 Flash VLinclusionAI | Mercury 2.5Inception |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.06 (best) | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.18 (best) | $0.75 |
| Cached input | — | $0.02 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.09 (best) | $0.338 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 7 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 | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | mercury-2.5 |
| API providers | 7 (best) | 6 |
| Released | Sep 10, 2026 | Sep 8, 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.
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL$0.96
- Mercury 2.5$3.50
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Mercury 2.5?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). 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 VL or Mercury 2.5?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 7 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 $0.09 per million tokens for Ling 3.0 Flash VL versus $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (3.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ling 3.0 Flash VL 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 VL 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 VL 262,144 and Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash VL up to 32,768, Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL accepts text, images and video; Mercury 2.5 accepts text. Ling 3.0 Flash VL handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the newest, released Sep 10, 2026. Mercury 2.5 came out Sep 8, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BThree-way comparison
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Granite 4.2 8BIBM
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Laguna S 2.1Poolside
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B ITGoogle
- Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
- Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen)
