Mercury Edit 2 vs DeepSeek OCR 2
Too close to call on our weighted score (Mercury Edit 2 35, DeepSeek OCR 2 32). The right pick depends on what you value most.
InceptionMercury Edit 2
35/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.75
- Context32K
DeepSeekDeepSeek OCR 2
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.89 / $1.47
- Context8K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Mercury Edit 2 35/100, DeepSeek OCR 2 32/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury Edit 2 on price and Mercury Edit 2 for long inputs. 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 Edit 2Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · DeepSeek OCR 2 $1.03 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMercury Edit 2Mercury Edit 2 32,000 · DeepSeek OCR 2 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsDeepSeek OCR 2Mercury Edit 2: Text · DeepSeek OCR 2: Text, Images
- Self-hostingDeepSeek OCR 2Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Mercury Edit 2 | DeepSeek OCR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 70 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 35/100 | 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 Edit 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 | 32,000 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | mercury-edit-2 | — |
| API providers | 1 | 2 (best) |
| Released | Mar 30, 2026 | Jan 27, 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 Edit 2$4.00
- DeepSeek OCR 2$11.83
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury Edit 2 or DeepSeek OCR 2?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Mercury Edit 2 35/100, DeepSeek OCR 2 32/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury Edit 2 on price and Mercury Edit 2 for long inputs. 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 Edit 2 or DeepSeek OCR 2?
Mercury Edit 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 Edit 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 Edit 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 Edit 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 Mercury Edit 2 and DeepSeek OCR 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mercury Edit 2 has the largest context window at 32,000 tokens, against 8,192 for DeepSeek OCR 2. Maximum output per response: Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192, DeepSeek OCR 2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury Edit 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 Edit 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mercury Edit 2 is the newest, released Mar 30, 2026. DeepSeek OCR 2 came out Jan 27, 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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Trinity Large ThinkingThree-way comparison
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Step 3.7 FlashStepFun
- Mercury Edit 2 vs Seed 1.8ByteDance Seed
- DeepSeek OCR 2 vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax
- DeepSeek OCR 2 vs Seed 2.0 CodeByteDance Seed
