Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
Ling 3.0 Flash VL comes out ahead, 76 to 65 and 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
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash VL
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.216 / $0.647
- Context1M
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is our pick
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp (65) and Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price and inputs & features. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp wins on 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 priceLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL $0.09 · DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp $0.323 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp 1,000,000 · Ling 3.0 Flash VL 262,144 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsLing 3.0 Flash VLMercury 2.5: Text · Ling 3.0 Flash VL: Text, Images, Video · DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp: Text, Images
- Self-hostingLing 3.0 Flash VL and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpPublishes downloadable weights (MIT)
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2.5 | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 95 | 70 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 70 | 60 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 37 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 76/100 | 65/100 |
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 | Ling 3.0 Flash VLinclusionAI | DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.06 (best) | $0.216 |
| Output | $0.75 | $0.18 (best) | $0.647 |
| Cached input | $0.02 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.338 | $0.09 (best) | $0.323 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Median of 7 providers | Median of 14 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 32,768 tokens | 384,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenMIT | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | mercury-2.5 | — | — |
| API providers | 6 | 7 | 15 (best) |
| Released | Sep 8, 2026 | Sep 10, 2026 | Aug 21, 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.
- Mercury 2.5$3.50
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL$0.96
- DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp$3.45
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2.5, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp (65) and Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price and inputs & features. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp wins on 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, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp costs $0.216 input / $0.647 output per million tokens (median across 14 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 $0.323 for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp (3.6× as much) and $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (3.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet, Ling 3.0 Flash VL has not been scored yet and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5, Ling 3.0 Flash VL and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536, Ling 3.0 Flash VL up to 32,768, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp up to 384,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2.5 accepts text; Ling 3.0 Flash VL accepts text, images and video; DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp accepts text and images. Ling 3.0 Flash VL handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp 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; DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp came out Aug 21, 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.
