Mercury 2.5 vs Solar Mini 4
Solar Mini 4 comes out ahead, 64 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
UpstageSolar Mini 4
64/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context524K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Solar Mini 4 is our pick
Solar Mini 4 is the better all-round choice, scoring 64/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price and 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 priceSolar Mini 4Solar Mini 4 $0.175 · Mercury 2.5 $0.338 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSolar Mini 4Solar Mini 4 524,288 · Mercury 2.5 260,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMercury 2.5: Text · Solar Mini 4: Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2.5 | Solar Mini 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 49 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 64/100 |
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 | Solar Mini 4Upstage |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $0.75 | $0.40 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.02 | $0.01 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.338 | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Official Upstage API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 260,000 tokens | 524,288 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 | Yesminimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | mercury-2.5 | solar-mini4 |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 4 |
| Released | Sep 8, 2026 | Sep 22, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Feb 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
- Solar Mini 4$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2.5 or Solar Mini 4?
Solar Mini 4 is the better all-round choice, scoring 64/100 against Mercury 2.5 (55). It leads on price and 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 or Solar Mini 4?
Solar Mini 4 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Upstage 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 $0.175 per million tokens for Solar Mini 4 versus $0.338 for Mercury 2.5 (1.9× 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 Solar Mini 4 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2.5 and Solar Mini 4 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?
Solar Mini 4 has the largest context window at 524,288 tokens, against 260,000 for Mercury 2.5. Maximum output per response: Mercury 2.5 up to 65,536, Solar Mini 4 up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2.5 accepts text; Solar Mini 4 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
No. Mercury 2.5 and Solar Mini 4 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Solar Mini 4 is the newest, released Sep 22, 2026. Mercury 2.5 came out Sep 8, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Solar Mini 4 Feb 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
- Solar Mini 4 vs MiMo-V2.6-FlashXiaomi
- Solar Mini 4 vs Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce
