Mercury 2.5 vs Mercury 3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
MiMo-V2.6-Flash comes out ahead, 80 to 67 and 55 on our weighted score, though Mercury 3 is 7% cheaper per token.
InceptionMercury 2.5
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.75
- Context260K
- Inception
Mercury 3
67/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.35
- Context1M
- Our pick
XiaomiMiMo-V2.6-Flash
80/100- ECI—
- Price$0.14 / $0.28
- Context1.05M
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is our pick
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Mercury 3 (67) and Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads 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 priceMercury 3Mercury 3 $0.163 · MiMo-V2.6-Flash $0.175 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMiMo-V2.6-FlashMiMo-V2.6-Flash 1,048,576 · Mercury 3 1,000,000 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMiMo-V2.6-FlashMercury 2.5: Text · Mercury 3: Text · MiMo-V2.6-Flash: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingMiMo-V2.6-FlashPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2.5 | Mercury 3 | MiMo-V2.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 84 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 45 | 90 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 67/100 | 80/100 |
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 | Mercury 3Inception | MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.10 (best) | $0.14 |
| Output | $0.75 | $0.35 | $0.28 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.02 | $0.01 | $0.0028 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.338 | $0.163 (best) | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Official Inception API | Official Xiaomi API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | Yes |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | mercury-2.5 | mercury-3 | mimo-v2.6-flash |
| API providers | 6 | 3 | 23 (best) |
| Released | Sep 8, 2026 | Oct 16, 2026 | Sep 22, 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
- Mercury 3$1.70
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash$1.96
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2.5, Mercury 3 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 80/100 against Mercury 3 (67) and Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads 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, Mercury 3 or MiMo-V2.6-Flash?
Mercury 3 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.35 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). MiMo-V2.6-Flash costs $0.14 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (official Xiaomi 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 $0.163 per million tokens for Mercury 3 versus $0.175 for MiMo-V2.6-Flash (1.1× as much) and $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (2.1× 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, Mercury 3 has not been scored yet and MiMo-V2.6-Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5, Mercury 3 and MiMo-V2.6-Flash 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?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Mercury 3 and 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536, Mercury 3 up to 131,072, MiMo-V2.6-Flash up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2.5 accepts text; Mercury 3 accepts text; MiMo-V2.6-Flash accepts text, images, audio and video. MiMo-V2.6-Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiMo-V2.6-Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 and Mercury 3 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury 3 is the newest, released Oct 16, 2026. MiMo-V2.6-Flash came out Sep 22, 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.
