Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2 0711

Updated October 21, 2026. 4 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
12.3
Output $/M
$0.15
3
Kimi K2 0711Moonshot AI
Coding
No data
Overall
12.7
Output $/M
$2.30
1
vs boards won of 4 shared

Decision reading

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Kimi K2 0711 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Kimi K2 0711 has the edge where the benchmark that matters is AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
4
Mercury 2.5 only
18
Kimi K2 0711 only
32
Like-for-like categories
4 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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
Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks, Kimi K2 0711 not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 18.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Mercury 2.5 71.7% against Kimi K2 0711 53.0%, 18.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Kimi K2 0711 $2.30 per million output tokens, 15.3x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Kimi K2 0711 131K.

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
CategoryMercury 2.5BarsKimi K2 0711Ties
Intelligence01
Reasoning10
Knowledge10
General10
All shared boards31
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index17 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Kimi K2 0711Leader
Aider polyglotNot measured59.1%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured71.2%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured70.5%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.7%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)4.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
IOI (Vals AI)2.4%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)34.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)18.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)45.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured55.6%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured15.9%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured27.8%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
GSO-BenchNot measured4.9%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
WeirdMLNot measured39.4%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
ALE-Bench301.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Kimi K2 0711Leader
AA Intelligence Index12.312.7Kimi K2 0711
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured140.0Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Kimi K2 0711Leader
Finance Agent (Vals AI)18.9%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)2.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)4.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)8.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured61.1%Only Kimi K2 0711 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 Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Kimi K2 0711Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured71.5%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured76.6%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)11.8%7.4%Mercury 2.5
SimpleBenchNot measured26.3%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Kimi K2 0711Leader
AIMENot measured62.7%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured94.2%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured91.0%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured57.0Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured57.0%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
ProofBench3.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Kimi K2 0711Leader
MMLU ProNot measured79.4%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.1%81.5%Mercury 2.5
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured50.4%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured70.2%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured84.0%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)31.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured82.4%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Kimi K2 0711Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1050Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1030Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured974Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1018Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1033Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Kimi K2 0711Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)45.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.1%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
IFBenchNot measured41.5%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.7%53.0%Mercury 2.5
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured61.1%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured85.6%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
CL-benchNot measured11.9%Only Kimi K2 0711 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
BenchmarkMercury 2.5Kimi K2 0711Leader
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$0.0001Fits in one request
Kimi K2 0711$0.0017Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request
Kimi K2 0711$0.035Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request
Kimi K2 0711$0.137Exceeds the context window

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 Mercury 2.5 and Kimi K2 0711
SpecificationInception Mercury 2.5MoonshotAI Kimi K2 0711
MakerInceptionMoonshot AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 8, 2026July 11, 2025
Context window260K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.04$0.57
Output $/Mtok$0.15$2.30
Coding index1.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than Kimi K2 0711 for coding?

Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Kimi K2 0711 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Kimi K2 0711 has the edge where the benchmark that matters is AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Kimi K2 0711?

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Kimi K2 0711 costs $0.57 and $2.30. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Kimi K2 0711?

Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Kimi K2 0711 comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Mercury 2.5's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Kimi K2 0711's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next