Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2 vs Kimi K2 Thinking

Kimi K2 Thinking leads Mercury 2 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.0 to 10.8, and Mercury 2 costs 3.3x less per output token ($0.75 vs $2.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 10 benchmarks have a result for both.

Mercury 2Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.75
3
Kimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.50
7
vs boards won of 10 shared

Mercury 2 or Kimi K2 Thinking: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 3.3x cheaper ($0.75 vs $2.50 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
10
Mercury 2 only
32
Kimi K2 Thinking only
20
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 not benchmarked, Kimi K2 Thinking not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 22.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Mercury 2 43.7% against Kimi K2 Thinking 72.0%, 28.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2 $0.75 against Kimi K2 Thinking $2.50 per million output tokens, 3.3x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2 takes 128K tokens, Kimi K2 Thinking 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 2BarsKimi K2 ThinkingTies
Coding21
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
Web design01
General11
All shared boards37
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index21
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkMercury 2Kimi K2 ThinkingLeader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured63.4%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LMArena WebDev1171Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
AA Coding Index31.1Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured63.1%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured60.2%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured85.3%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
SciCode37.7%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)26.5%31.1%Kimi K2 Thinking
Terminal-BenchNot measured35.7%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
WeirdML43.2%42.8%Mercury 2
ALE-Bench785.6597.5Mercury 2
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 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkMercury 2Kimi K2 ThinkingLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.822.0Kimi K2 Thinking
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured145.8Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkMercury 2Kimi K2 ThinkingLeader
AA Agentic Index1.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom70.8%93.0%Kimi K2 Thinking
METR time horizonsNot measured59.2%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkMercury 2Kimi K2 ThinkingLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured78.5%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)77.0%83.8%Kimi K2 Thinking
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.1%23.8%Kimi K2 Thinking
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
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkMercury 2Kimi K2 ThinkingLeader
AIMENot measured85.4%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured90.2%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
AA Math IndexNot measured94.7Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured94.7%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkMercury 2Kimi K2 ThinkingLeader
MMLU ProNot measured81.1%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.2%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured65.7%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured60.6%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured71.7%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured92.6%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.8%Only Kimi K2 Thinking 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 8 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkMercury 2Kimi K2 ThinkingLeader
Design Arena: websites10361113Kimi K2 Thinking
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 index11
General benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkMercury 2Kimi K2 ThinkingLeader
IFBench69.8%68.1%Mercury 2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)43.7%72.0%Kimi K2 Thinking
CL-benchNot measured17.6%Only Kimi K2 Thinking measured
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 32 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 2 and Kimi K2 Thinking
BenchmarkMercury 2Kimi K2 ThinkingLeader
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
Kimi K2 Thinking$0.0019Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.015Fits in one request
Kimi K2 Thinking$0.037Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.058Exceeds the context window
Kimi K2 Thinking$0.145Fits in one request

Mercury 2 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 Kimi K2 Thinking
SpecificationInception Mercury 2MoonshotAI Kimi K2 Thinking
MakerInceptionMoonshot AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 4, 2026November 6, 2025
Context window128K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.60
Output $/Mtok$0.75$2.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.61
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2 better than Kimi K2 Thinking for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 3.3x cheaper ($0.75 vs $2.50 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or Kimi K2 Thinking?

Mercury 2 costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Kimi K2 Thinking costs $0.60 and $2.50. Cost per solved task is known for Kimi K2 Thinking only.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2 or Kimi K2 Thinking?

Kimi K2 Thinking, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2 vs Kimi K2 Thinking comparison based on?

10 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Mercury 2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Kimi K2 Thinking's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next