Mercury 2.5 vs Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Too close to call on our weighted score (Mercury 2.5 55, Beam 1.0 501B A23B 54). The right pick depends on what you value most.
InceptionMercury 2.5
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.75
- Context260K
Reflection AIBeam 1.0 501B A23B
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.00
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Mercury 2.5 55/100, Beam 1.0 501B A23B 54/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury 2.5 on price and Beam 1.0 501B A23B 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 $0.338 · Beam 1.0 501B A23B $0.475 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextBeam 1.0 501B A23BBeam 1.0 501B A23B 1,048,576 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMercury 2.5: Text · Beam 1.0 501B A23B: Text
- Self-hostingBeam 1.0 501B A23BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2.5 | Beam 1.0 501B A23B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 62 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 54/100 |
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 | Mercury 2.5Inception | Beam 1.0 501B A23BReflection AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 (best) | $0.30 |
| Output | $0.75 (best) | $1.00 |
| Cached input | $0.02 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.338 (best) | $0.475 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Median of 7 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | mercury-2.5 | — |
| API providers | 6 | 12 (best) |
| Released | Sep 8, 2026 | Oct 5, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 30, 2026 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Mercury 2.5$3.50
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B$5.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2.5 or Beam 1.0 501B A23B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Mercury 2.5 55/100, Beam 1.0 501B A23B 54/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury 2.5 on price and Beam 1.0 501B A23B 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, Mercury 2.5 or Beam 1.0 501B A23B?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Beam 1.0 501B A23B costs $0.30 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 7 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 $0.475 for Beam 1.0 501B A23B (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet and Beam 1.0 501B A23B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5 and Beam 1.0 501B A23B 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?
Beam 1.0 501B A23B has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536, Beam 1.0 501B A23B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2.5 accepts text; Beam 1.0 501B A23B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Beam 1.0 501B A23B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Beam 1.0 501B A23B is the newest, released Oct 5, 2026. Mercury 2.5 came out Sep 8, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Beam 1.0 501B A23B Jun 30, 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 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpThree-way comparison
- Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
- Mercury 2.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen)
- Mercury 2.5 vs Toast 1Mixedbread
- Mercury 2.5 vs Kolibri 1Aleph Alpha
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Perceptron Mk1.5Perceptron
