ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mercury 2.5

Mercury 2.5 comes out ahead, 55 to 50 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. inclusionAI

    Ling 3.1 Flash

    Released Sep 29, 2026New

    50/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $0.90
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Ling 3.1 Flash
  2. Our pick

    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

Mercury 2.5 is our pick

Mercury 2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (50). 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 $0.338 · Ling 3.1 Flash $0.45 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameLing 3.1 Flash 262,144 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.1 Flash: Text · Mercury 2.5: Text
  • Self-hostingLing 3.1 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightLing 3.1 FlashMercury 2.5
Price50%6469
Inputs & features30%3545
Context window20%3736
Overall100%50/10055/100

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.

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mercury 2.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationLing 3.1 FlashinclusionAIMercury 2.5Inception
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30$0.20 (best)
Output$0.90$0.75 (best)
Cached input—$0.02
Blended (3:1)$0.45$0.338 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 5 providersOfficial Inception API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens (best)260,000 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYeslow · medium · high
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model ID—mercury-2.5
API providers7 (best)6
ReleasedSep 29, 2026Sep 8, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
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.

  • Ling 3.1 Flash$4.80
  • Mercury 2.5$3.50
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash or Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (50). 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 3.1 Flash or Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.338 per million tokens for Mercury 2.5 versus $0.45 for Ling 3.1 Flash (1.3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ling 3.1 Flash 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 3.1 Flash 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 3.1 Flash 262,144 and Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; Mercury 2.5 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Ling 3.1 Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Ling 3.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 29, 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons