Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Mercury 2.5 comes out ahead, 55 to 50 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
InceptionMercury 2.5
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.75
- Context260K
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
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 inputsMercury 2.5: Text · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text
- Self-hostingLing 3.1 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2.5 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 64 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 50/100 |
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 3.1 FlashinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 (best) | $0.30 |
| Output | $0.75 (best) | $0.90 |
| Cached input | $0.02 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.338 (best) | $0.45 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Median of 5 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens (best) | 32,768 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 | Open |
| API model ID | mercury-2.5 | — |
| API providers | 6 | 7 (best) |
| Released | Sep 8, 2026 | Sep 29, 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 3.1 Flash$4.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2.5 or Ling 3.1 Flash?
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, Mercury 2.5 or Ling 3.1 Flash?
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. Mercury 2.5 has not been scored yet and Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash 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: Mercury 2.5 260,000 and Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens. Maximum output per response: Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536, Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2.5 accepts text; Ling 3.1 Flash 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.
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
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs Beam 1.0 501B A23BReflection AI
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs Perceptron Mk1.5Perceptron
