Mercury 3 vs Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B
Mercury 3 comes out ahead, 67 to 59 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
InceptionMercury 3
67/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.35
- Context1M
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.
Mercury 3 is our pick
Mercury 3 is the better all-round choice, scoring 67/100 against Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B (59). 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 3Mercury 3 $0.163 · Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B $0.275 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B 1,048,576 · Mercury 3 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMercury 3: Text · Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B: Text
- Self-hostingNemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Mercury 3 | Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 84 | 73 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 67/100 | 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 3Inception | Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.35 (best) | $0.50 |
| Cached input | $0.01 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.163 (best) | $0.275 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 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-3 | — |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Oct 16, 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 3$1.70
- Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury 3 or Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B?
Mercury 3 is the better all-round choice, scoring 67/100 against Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B (59). 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 3 or Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B?
Mercury 3 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.35 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B costs $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.163 per million tokens for Mercury 3 versus $0.275 for Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B (1.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Mercury 3 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 3 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 1,000,000 for Mercury 3. Maximum output per response: Mercury 3 up to 131,072, Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury 3 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 3 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury 3 is the newest, released Oct 16, 2026. Nemotron 3.5 Super 120B A12B came out Oct 15, 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.
