Grok Build 0.1 vs Mercury 2.5
Grok Build 0.1 leads Mercury 2.5 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 27.2 to 12.3, and Mercury 2.5 costs 13.3x less per output token ($0.15 vs $2.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 2 benchmarks have a result for both.
Grok Build 0.1 or Mercury 2.5: which to pick
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Grok Build 0.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Grok Build 0.1 for work measured by Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 2
- Grok Build 0.1 only
- 1
- Mercury 2.5 only
- 20
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Grok Build 0.1
Grok Build 0.1 leads, 27.2 against 12.3.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens against 256K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 2.5
Grok Build 0.1 $0.0020, Mercury 2.5 $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Grok Build 0.1 not benchmarked, Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 14.9 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Intelligence Index: Grok Build 0.1 27.2 against Mercury 2.5 12.3, 14.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Grok Build 0.1 $2.00 against Mercury 2.5 $0.15 per million output tokens, 13.3x apart.
- Context window
- Grok Build 0.1 takes 256K 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.
| Category | Grok Build 0.1 | Bars | Mercury 2.5 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 2 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 51.5 | Not measured | Only Grok Build 0.1 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 13.4% | 3.7% | Grok Build 0.1 |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 4.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | Not measured | 2.4% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 34.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 18.1% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 45.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 38.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 301.6 | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 27.2 | 12.3 | Grok Build 0.1 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 18.9% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 2.5% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 4.3% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 8.8% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 11.8% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | Not measured | 3.0% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 83.1% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 31.3% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 45.3% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 55.1% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 71.7% | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 43 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Mercury 2.5 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Mercury 2.5 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mercury 2.5 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | SpaceXAI Grok Build 0.1 | Inception Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | xAI | Inception |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | May 20, 2026 | September 8, 2026 |
| Context window | 256K | 260K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.00 | $0.04 |
| Output $/Mtok | $2.00 | $0.15 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 1.6 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Mercury 2.5 for coding?
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Grok Build 0.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Grok Build 0.1 for work measured by Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Grok Build 0.1 or Mercury 2.5?
Grok Build 0.1 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $2.00 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, Grok Build 0.1 or Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks is the Grok Build 0.1 vs Mercury 2.5 comparison based on?
2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Grok Build 0.1'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.