Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2 vs Ling 3.0 Flash

Ling 3.0 Flash leads Mercury 2 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 20.1 to 10.8, and Ling 3.0 Flash costs 6.2x less per output token ($0.1215 vs $0.75 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.

Mercury 2Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.75
0
Ling 3.0 FlashinclusionAI
Coding
29.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.1215
7
vs boards won of 7 shared

Mercury 2 or Ling 3.0 Flash: which to pick

Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mercury 2 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
7
Mercury 2 only
35
Ling 3.0 Flash only
17
Like-for-like categories
5 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 not benchmarked, Ling 3.0 Flash 29.6 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
General, 29.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Mercury 2 43.7% against Ling 3.0 Flash 73.0%, 29.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2 $0.75 against Ling 3.0 Flash $0.1215 per million output tokens, 6.2x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2 takes 128K tokens, Ling 3.0 Flash 262K.

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 2BarsLing 3.0 FlashTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General01
All shared boards07
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Ling 3.0 Flash
BenchmarkMercury 2Ling 3.0 FlashLeader
LMArena WebDev1171Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
AA Coding Index31.150.6Ling 3.0 Flash
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.0%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured65.2%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.9%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured50.2%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured27.9%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
SciCode37.7%42.0%Ling 3.0 Flash
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)26.5%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
WeirdML43.2%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
ALE-Bench785.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: coding1390Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1385Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1160Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1199Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Ling 3.0 Flash
BenchmarkMercury 2Ling 3.0 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.820.1Ling 3.0 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Ling 3.0 Flash
BenchmarkMercury 2Ling 3.0 FlashLeader
AA Agentic Index1.619.3Ling 3.0 Flash
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured30.3%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured25.0%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
τ²-Bench Telecom70.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Ling 3.0 Flash
BenchmarkMercury 2Ling 3.0 FlashLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured84.8%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)77.0%85.5%Ling 3.0 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.1%23.7%Ling 3.0 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts1362Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: expert1358Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1374Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Ling 3.0 Flash
BenchmarkMercury 2Ling 3.0 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 13 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Ling 3.0 Flash
BenchmarkMercury 2Ling 3.0 FlashLeader
MMLU ProNot measured82.0%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured79.7%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured61.9%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured70.7%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured32.3%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
LMArena Text: science1343Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1363Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1349Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Ling 3.0 Flash
BenchmarkMercury 2Ling 3.0 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1036Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: UI components996Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: game dev984Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: data viz1009Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: 3D982Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1021Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: SVG998Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art988Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Ling 3.0 Flash
BenchmarkMercury 2Ling 3.0 FlashLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured50.7%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured80.9%Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured
IFBench69.8%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)43.7%73.0%Ling 3.0 Flash
LMArena Text1354Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1328Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1286Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: English1378Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1330Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1414Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1304Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1357Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1329Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1300Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1314Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Ling 3.0 Flash
BenchmarkMercury 2Ling 3.0 FlashLeader
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$0.0006Fits in one request
Ling 3.0 Flash$0.0001Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.015Fits in one request
Ling 3.0 Flash$0.0024Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.058Exceeds the context window
Ling 3.0 Flash$0.0093Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash 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 and Ling 3.0 Flash
SpecificationInception Mercury 2inclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash
MakerInceptioninclusionAI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 4, 2026July 23, 2026
Context window128K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.0405
Output $/Mtok$0.75$0.1215
Coding indexNot benchmarked29.6
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.05
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Ling 3.0 Flash for coding?

Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mercury 2 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

Mercury 2 costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 and $0.1215. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2 vs Ling 3.0 Flash comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Mercury 2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Ling 3.0 Flash's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next