Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2.5

MiniMax M2.5 leads Mercury 2.5 on coding, 37.2 to 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Mercury 2.5 costs 8.0x less per output token ($0.15 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.

Mercury 2.5Inception
Coding
1.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
1
MiniMax M2.5MiniMax
Coding
37.2
Overall
37.3
Output $/M
$1.20
6
vs boards won of 7 shared

Mercury 2.5 or MiniMax M2.5: which to pick

Pick MiniMax M2.5 for coding: it scores 37.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 1.6 for Mercury 2.5.

Pick Mercury 2.5 for output tokens 8.0x cheaper ($0.15 vs $1.20 per million) and a larger context window (260K against 205K tokens).

Shared results
7
Mercury 2.5 only
15
MiniMax M2.5 only
64
Like-for-like categories
6 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
Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks, MiniMax M2.5 37.2 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 10.9 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Mercury 2.5 3.7% against MiniMax M2.5 14.8%, 11.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against MiniMax M2.5 $1.20 per million output tokens, 8.0x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, MiniMax M2.5 205K.

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 2.5BarsMiniMax M2.5Ties
Coding02
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
Math01
Knowledge10
General01
All shared boards16
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured75.8%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured68.3%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1386Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured79.2%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured74.2%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.7%14.8%MiniMax M2.5
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
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured34.8%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured42.7%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
ALE-Bench301.6618.2MiniMax M2.5
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1380Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1383Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1374Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1414Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnANot measured10.3%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE Atlas: RefactoringNot measured19.5%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
SWE Atlas: Test WritingNot measured18.6%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5Leader
AA Intelligence Index12.322.8MiniMax M2.5
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured146.6Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5Leader
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 measured95.3%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured-$23Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured82.1%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.8%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)11.8%20.5%MiniMax M2.5
ARC-AGINot measured63.7%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured4.9%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1372Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1378Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1384Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured55.2%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5Leader
AIMENot measured88.8%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
ProofBench3.0%4.0%MiniMax M2.5
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1378Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1378Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5Leader
MMLU ProNot measured80.1%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.1%80.0%Mercury 2.5
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured53.5%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured59.6%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured68.2%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured92.5%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)31.3%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2.5 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1369Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1357Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1366Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1356Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1222Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1170Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1176Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1172Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1170Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1207Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1150Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5Leader
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 measured71.6%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)71.7%73.3%MiniMax M2.5
CL-benchNot measured11.4%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
CL-bench LifeNot measured6.3%Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1359Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1353Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1331Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1380Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1338Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1393Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1361Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1171Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1233Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1363Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1353Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1359Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1334Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1364Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1366Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1345Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1329Only MiniMax M2.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 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 MiniMax M2.5
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5Leader
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

Mercury 2.5$0.0001Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.5$0.0009Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0024Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.5$0.019Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2.5$0.0095Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.5$0.072Exceeds 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 MiniMax M2.5
SpecificationInception Mercury 2.5MiniMax M2.5
MakerInceptionMiniMax
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 8, 2026February 12, 2026
Context window260K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.04$0.30
Output $/Mtok$0.15$1.20
Coding index1.637.2
Independent measurements behind it23
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.62
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2.5 better than MiniMax M2.5 for coding?

Pick MiniMax M2.5 for coding: it scores 37.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 1.6 for Mercury 2.5. Pick Mercury 2.5 for output tokens 8.0x cheaper ($0.15 vs $1.20 per million) and a larger context window (260K against 205K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or MiniMax M2.5?

Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; MiniMax M2.5 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Cost per solved task is known for MiniMax M2.5 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or MiniMax M2.5?

Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2.5 comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Mercury 2.5's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and MiniMax M2.5's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/inception-mercury-2-5-vs-minimax-minimax-m2-5" title="Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2.5, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/inception-mercury-2-5-vs-minimax-minimax-m2-5">LLMBenchmark.ai, Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2.5</a></p>