Mercury 2 vs DeepSeek OCR 2
Mercury 2 comes out ahead, 53 to 32 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
InceptionMercury 2
53/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.75
- Context128K
DeepSeekDeepSeek OCR 2
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.89 / $1.47
- Context8K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Mercury 2 is our pick
Mercury 2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on price, inputs & features 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 priceMercury 2Mercury 2 $0.375 · DeepSeek OCR 2 $1.03 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMercury 2Mercury 2 128,000 · DeepSeek OCR 2 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsDeepSeek OCR 2Mercury 2: Text · DeepSeek OCR 2: Text, Images
- Self-hostingDeepSeek OCR 2Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 2 | DeepSeek OCR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 70 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 32/100 |
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 2Inception | DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.25 (best) | $0.89 |
| Output | $0.75 (best) | $1.47 |
| Cached input | $0.025 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.375 (best) | $1.03 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Max output | 50,000 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | mercury-2 | — |
| API providers | 1 | 2 (best) |
| Released | Feb 24, 2026 | Jan 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 1, 2025 | — |
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$4.00
- DeepSeek OCR 2$11.83
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 2 or DeepSeek OCR 2?
Mercury 2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against DeepSeek OCR 2 (32). It leads on price, inputs & features 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 or DeepSeek OCR 2?
Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). DeepSeek OCR 2 costs $0.89 input / $1.47 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.375 per million tokens for Mercury 2 versus $1.03 for DeepSeek OCR 2 (2.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Mercury 2 has not been scored yet and DeepSeek OCR 2 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mercury 2 and DeepSeek OCR 2 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that DeepSeek OCR 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mercury 2 has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 8,192 for DeepSeek OCR 2. Maximum output per response: Mercury 2 up to 50,000, DeepSeek OCR 2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 2 accepts text; DeepSeek OCR 2 accepts text and images. DeepSeek OCR 2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek OCR 2 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Mercury 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury 2 is the newest, released Feb 24, 2026. DeepSeek OCR 2 came out Jan 27, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Mercury 2 Jan 1, 2025.
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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12BThree-way comparison
- Mercury 2 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
- Mercury 2 vs Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
- Mercury 2 vs Seed 1.8ByteDance Seed
- Mercury 2 vs Qwen3 Coder NextAlibaba (Qwen)
- DeepSeek OCR 2 vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax
- DeepSeek OCR 2 vs Seed 2.0 CodeByteDance Seed
