Mercury 2.5 vs Kolibri 1
Kolibri 1 comes out ahead, 60 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
InceptionMercury 2.5
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.75
- Context260K
- Our pick
Aleph AlphaKolibri 1
60/100- ECI—
- Price$0.164 / $0.574
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Kolibri 1 is our pick
Kolibri 1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price and context window. Mercury 2.5 wins on 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 priceKolibri 1Kolibri 1 $0.266 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextKolibri 1Kolibri 1 1,048,576 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMercury 2.5: Text · Kolibri 1: Text
- Self-hostingKolibri 1Publishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2.5 | Kolibri 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 74 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 60/100 |
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 | Kolibri 1Aleph Alpha |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.164 (best) |
| Output | $0.75 | $0.574 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.02 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.338 | $0.266 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Median of 4 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | — |
| 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 (best) | 4 |
| Released | Sep 8, 2026 | Oct 3, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 18, 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
- Kolibri 1$2.78
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2.5 or Kolibri 1?
Kolibri 1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price and context window. Mercury 2.5 wins on 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, Mercury 2.5 or Kolibri 1?
Kolibri 1 is cheaper at $0.164 input / $0.574 output per million tokens (median across 4 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 $0.266 per million tokens for Kolibri 1 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 Kolibri 1 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5 and Kolibri 1 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?
Kolibri 1 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 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2.5 accepts text; Kolibri 1 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Kolibri 1 publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Kolibri 1 is the newest, released Oct 3, 2026. Mercury 2.5 came out Sep 8, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Kolibri 1 Jun 18, 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
- Kolibri 1 vs MiniMax-M3.1-FlashMiniMax
- Kolibri 1 vs Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
- Kolibri 1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen)
