Mercury 2.5 vs Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B comes out ahead, 59 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
NVIDIANemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B
59/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B is our pick
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 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 priceNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B $0.275 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B 1,048,576 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMercury 2.5: Text · Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B: Text
- Self-hostingNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2.5 | Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 73 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 59/100 |
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 | Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.75 | $0.50 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.02 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.338 | $0.275 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| 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 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Sep 8, 2026 | Oct 15, 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
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2.5 or Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B?
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 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 Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B?
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). 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 $0.275 per million tokens for Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B versus $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (1.2× 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 Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5 and Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B 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?
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B 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, Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2.5 accepts text; Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B is the newest, released Oct 15, 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
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B vs MiniMax-M3.1-FlashMiniMax
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B vs Kolibri 1Aleph Alpha
