Mercury 2.5 vs Moondream 3 Preview
Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- 1.6
- Overall
- 12.3
- Output $/M
- $0.15
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $2.50
Decision reading
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Moondream 3 Preview has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 0
- Mercury 2.5 only
- 22
- Moondream 3 Preview only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 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.
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
No call
Only Mercury 2.5 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 12.3.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens against 32K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 $0.0001, Moondream 3 Preview $0.0015 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks, Moondream 3 Preview not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- No category has a result for both models.
- Widest single gap
- No benchmark has a result for both models.
- Output price
- Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against Moondream 3 Preview $2.50 per million output tokens, 16.7x apart.
- Context window
- Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, Moondream 3 Preview 32K.
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.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 3.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 4.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 2.4% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 34.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 18.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 45.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SciCode | 38.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 301.6 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 12.3 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| 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 | Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 18.9% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 2.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 4.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 8.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 11.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3.0% | Not measured | 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 | Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 83.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 31.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview | 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 | Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 45.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 55.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 71.7% | Not measured | 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 | Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview | 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 | Inception Mercury 2.5 | Moondream 3 Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Inception | Moondream |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | September 8, 2026 | October 15, 2026 |
| Context window | 260K | 32K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.04 | $0.30 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.15 | $2.50 |
| Coding index | 1.6 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than Moondream 3 Preview for coding?
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Moondream 3 Preview has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Moondream 3 Preview?
Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Moondream 3 Preview costs $0.30 and $2.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2.5 or Moondream 3 Preview?
Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 32K.
How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2.5 vs Moondream 3 Preview comparison based on?
0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Mercury 2.5's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Moondream 3 Preview's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.