Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Mercury 2.5

Claude Opus 4.1 leads Mercury 2.5 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.8 to 12.3, and Mercury 2.5 costs 500.0x less per output token ($0.15 vs $75.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic
Coding
No data
Overall
50.2
Output $/M
$75.00
4
Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
0
vs boards won of 4 shared

Claude Opus 4.1 or Mercury 2.5: which to pick

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Claude Opus 4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or LegalBench (Vals AI), where it leads.

Shared results
4
Claude Opus 4.1 only
69
Mercury 2.5 only
18
Like-for-like categories
3 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Opus 4.1 not benchmarked, Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
General, 18.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
MedScribe (Vals AI): Claude Opus 4.1 73.9% against Mercury 2.5 55.1%, 18.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.1 $75.00 against Mercury 2.5 $0.15 per million output tokens, 500.0x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.1 takes 200K tokens, Mercury 2.5 260K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Opus 4.1BarsMercury 2.5Ties
Intelligence10
Knowledge20
General10
All shared boards40
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index18 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Mercury 2.5Leader
LMArena WebDev1390Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)66.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured3.7%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured4.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured2.4%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured34.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured18.1%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured45.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
SciCodeNot measured38.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench38.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
WeirdML45.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Cybench42.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured301.6Only Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding1479Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1456Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1399Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SciCode4.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Mercury 2.5Leader
AA Intelligence Index22.812.3Claude Opus 4.1
Epoch Capabilities Index144.1Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Mercury 2.5Leader
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured18.9%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured4.3%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured8.8%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
METR time horizons66.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GDPval43.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
DeepResearch Bench48.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Mercury 2.5Leader
GPQA Diamond76.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)77.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured11.8%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)77.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SimpleBench60.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Mystery game puzzles21.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
EBR-bench7.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
VPCT35.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1442Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: expert1438Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1451Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Mercury 2.5Leader
AIME78.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)94.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME68.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 312.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
ProofBenchNot measured3.0%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: math1431Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1434Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Mercury 2.5Leader
MMLU Pro87.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.5%83.1%Claude Opus 4.1
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)47.2%31.3%Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: science1422Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1416Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1421Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1406Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FACTS Benchmark Suite40.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Mercury 2.5Leader
Design Arena: websites1176Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: UI components1162Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: game dev1171Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: data viz1166Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D1152Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1170Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: SVG1152Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1167Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Mercury 2.5Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured45.3%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)31.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.9%55.1%Claude Opus 4.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured71.7%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
DTBench80.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMCA37.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)84.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text1419Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1435Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1412Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: English1433Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1405Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1427Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: German1413Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1377Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1381Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1433Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1448Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1422Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1413Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1444Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1455Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1418Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1398Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Mercury 2.5Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.052Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5$0.0001Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.975Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$3.75Exceeds the context window
Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Opus 4.1 and Mercury 2.5
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.1Inception Mercury 2.5
MakerAnthropicInception
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 5, 2025September 8, 2026
Context window200K260K
Input $/Mtok$15.00$0.04
Output $/Mtok$75.00$0.15
Coding indexNot benchmarked1.6
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Mercury 2.5 for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Claude Opus 4.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or LegalBench (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Mercury 2.5?

Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.1 or Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.1 vs Mercury 2.5 comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Mercury 2.5's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next