ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 comes out ahead, 70 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Inception

    Mercury 2.5

    Released Sep 8, 2026New

    55/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.20 / $0.75
    • Context260K
    Full specs Remove Mercury 2.5
  2. Our pick

    DeepSeek

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

    Released Oct 17, 2026New

    70/100
    • ECI158.8
    • Price$0.15 / $0.60
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is our pick

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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 priceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Mercury 2.5: Text · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Publishes downloadable weights (MIT)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMercury 2.5DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Price50%6974
Inputs & features30%4570
Context window20%3660
Overall100%55/10070/100

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.

Mercury 2.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 specifications side by side
SpecificationMercury 2.5InceptionDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)—158.8
ECI rank—#19 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—93.2%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—71.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—99.4%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—42.5%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.20$0.15 (best)
Output$0.75$0.60 (best)
Cached input$0.02$0.003 (best)
Blended (3:1)$0.338$0.263 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Inception APIOfficial DeepSeek API
Limits
Context window260,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output65,536 tokens384,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYeslow · medium · highYeslow · high · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenMIT
API model IDmercury-2.5deepseek-flash
API providers640 (best)
ReleasedSep 8, 2026Oct 17, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—May 2025
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.

  • Mercury 2.5$3.50
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$2.70
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Mercury 2.5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). 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 $0.263 per million tokens for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 versus $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (1.3× 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 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has an ECI of 158.8.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 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?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Mercury 2.5 accepts text; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the newest, released Oct 17, 2026. Mercury 2.5 came out Sep 8, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 May 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 Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons