Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp vs Mercury 2.5

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp leads Mercury 2.5 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 16.6 to 12.3, and Mercury 2.5 costs 2.7x less per output token ($0.15 vs $0.41 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.

DeepSeek V3.2 ExpDeepSeek
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.41
3
Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
0
vs boards won of 3 shared

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp or Mercury 2.5: which to pick

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3.2 Exp has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick DeepSeek V3.2 Exp for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
3
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp only
56
Mercury 2.5 only
19
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
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp not benchmarked, Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Intelligence, 4.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: DeepSeek V3.2 Exp 16.6 against Mercury 2.5 12.3, 4.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp $0.41 against Mercury 2.5 $0.15 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
Context window
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp takes 164K 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
CategoryDeepSeek V3.2 ExpBarsMercury 2.5Ties
Intelligence10
Reasoning10
General10
All shared boards30
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index17 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 ExpMercury 2.5Leader
Aider polyglot74.2%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena WebDev1272Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp 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
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)78.9%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
SciCodeNot measured38.5%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)31.1%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
WeirdML39.5%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
ALE-BenchNot measured301.6Only Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding1438Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1438Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1281Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 ExpMercury 2.5Leader
AA Intelligence Index16.612.3DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
Epoch Capabilities Index144.9Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 ExpMercury 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
τ²-Bench Telecom33.9%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
TheAgentCompany42.9%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)56.7%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Reasoning benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 ExpMercury 2.5Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)79.7%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)14.9%11.8%DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
LMArena Text: hard prompts1429Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: expert1422Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1444Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark52.2%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 ExpMercury 2.5Leader
AA Math Index87.7Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)87.7%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
ProofBenchNot measured3.0%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: math1422Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1433Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 ExpMercury 2.5Leader
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured83.1%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured31.3%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)85.0%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: science1443Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1468Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1419Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1412Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 ExpMercury 2.5Leader
Design Arena: websites1179Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Design Arena: UI components1167Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Design Arena: game dev1144Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Design Arena: data viz1152Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Design Arena: 3D1148Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Design Arena: all code categories1171Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Design Arena: SVG1032Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 ExpMercury 2.5Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured45.3%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured55.1%Only Mercury 2.5 measured
IFBench54.1%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)72.3%71.7%DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
DTBench87.7%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMCA29.1%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Fiction.LiveBench83.3%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
CL-bench13.2%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
CL-bench Life9.5%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text1425Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1401Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1404Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: English1441Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: non-English1404Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1461Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: German1440Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1331Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: Korean1372Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: French1434Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1441Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: Russian1412Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: Polish1435Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1422Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1418Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1407Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1407Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.2 Exp measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2 ExpMercury 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

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp$0.0005Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5$0.0001Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp$0.015Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp$0.058Exceeds 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 DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Mercury 2.5
SpecificationDeepSeek V3.2 ExpInception Mercury 2.5
MakerDeepSeekInception
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 29, 2025September 8, 2026
Context window164K260K
Input $/Mtok$0.27$0.04
Output $/Mtok$0.41$0.15
Coding indexNot benchmarked1.6
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is DeepSeek V3.2 Exp better than Mercury 2.5 for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3.2 Exp has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick DeepSeek V3.2 Exp for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3.2 Exp or Mercury 2.5?

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp costs $0.27 per million input tokens and $0.41 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, DeepSeek V3.2 Exp or Mercury 2.5?

Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks is the DeepSeek V3.2 Exp vs Mercury 2.5 comparison based on?

3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. DeepSeek V3.2 Exp'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