Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 2 vs o1

o1 leads Mercury 2 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 15.2 to 10.8, and Mercury 2 costs 80.0x less per output token ($0.75 vs $60.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 28 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Mercury 2 Replace o1
Mercury 2Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.75
12
o1OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
44.6
Output $/M
$60.00
16
vs boards won of 28 shared

Mercury 2 or o1: which to pick

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

Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 80.0x cheaper ($0.75 vs $60.00 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or WeirdML, where it leads.

Model AMercury 2InceptionNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel Bo1OpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
28
Mercury 2 only
14
o1 only
41
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, o1 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 8.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Mercury 2 43.7% against o1 65.0%, 21.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mercury 2 $0.75 against o1 $60.00 per million output tokens, 80.0x apart.
Context window
Mercury 2 takes 128K tokens, o1 200K.

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 2Barso1Ties
Coding32
Intelligence01
Agentic work10
Reasoning32
Knowledge21
General310
All shared boards1216
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index32
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 2 and o1
BenchmarkMercury 2o1Leader
Aider polyglotNot measured61.7%Only o1 measured
LMArena WebDev1171Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
AA Coding Index31.139.7o1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured50.3%Only o1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured67.9%Only o1 measured
SciCode37.7%Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)26.5%12.9%Mercury 2
WeirdML43.2%46.1%o1
ALE-Bench785.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena Text: coding13901367Mercury 2
LMArena Text: software and IT13851366Mercury 2
LMArena WebDev: React1160Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1199Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
SciCodeNot measured4.6%Only o1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 2 and o1
BenchmarkMercury 2o1Leader
AA Intelligence Index10.815.2o1
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured141.7Only o1 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 2 and o1
BenchmarkMercury 2o1Leader
AA Agentic Index1.6Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom70.8%62.6%Mercury 2
METR time horizonsNot measured51.1%Only o1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index32
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 2 and o1
BenchmarkMercury 2o1Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured73.2%Only o1 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured77.4%Only o1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)77.0%74.7%Mercury 2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.1%7.0%Mercury 2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured76.8%Only o1 measured
ARC-AGINot measured30.7%Only o1 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured40.1%Only o1 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured10.0%Only o1 measured
VPCTNot measured37.0%Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13621371o1
LMArena Text: expert13581361o1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13741372Mercury 2
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 2 and o1
BenchmarkMercury 2o1Leader
AIMENot measured71.5%Only o1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured90.4%Only o1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured89.3%Only o1 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured73.3%Only o1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured14.7%Only o1 measured
MATH level 5Not measured94.7%Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1388Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1390Only o1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 2 and o1
BenchmarkMercury 2o1Leader
MMLU ProNot measured83.5%Only o1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.4%Only o1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured74.3%Only o1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured96.5%Only o1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.1%Only o1 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured41.1%Only o1 measured
GeoBenchNot measured80.0%Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: science13431369o1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13631355Mercury 2
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1368Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance13491328Mercury 2
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 2 and o1
BenchmarkMercury 2o1Leader
Design Arena: websites1036Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: UI components998Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: game dev985Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: data viz1009Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: 3D983Not measuredOnly Mercury 2 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1022Not 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 index310
General benchmarks for Mercury 2 and o1
BenchmarkMercury 2o1Leader
IFBench69.8%70.3%o1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)43.7%65.0%o1
DTBenchNot measured74.7%Only o1 measured
LMCANot measured22.3%Only o1 measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured83.3%Only o1 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured70.2%Only o1 measured
LMArena Text13541366o1
LMArena Text: instruction following13281367o1
LMArena Text: creative writing12861347o1
LMArena VisionNot measured1168Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: English13781372Mercury 2
LMArena Text: non-English13301358o1
LMArena Text: Chinese14141394Mercury 2
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1337Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1346Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1396Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1344Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1345Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian13041356o1
LMArena Text: multi-turn13571355Mercury 2
LMArena Text: longer queries13291378o1
LMArena Text: writing and language13001360o1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13141358o1
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1162Only o1 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1235Only o1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 2 and o1
BenchmarkMercury 2o1Leader
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
o1$0.045Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.015Fits in one request
o1$0.930Fits in one request

Mercury 2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 2$0.058Exceeds the context window
o1$3.60Exceeds the context window

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 o1
SpecificationInception Mercury 2OpenAI o1
MakerInceptionOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedMarch 4, 2026December 17, 2024
Context window128K200K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$15.00
Output $/Mtok$0.75$60.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 2 better than o1 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mercury 2 for output tokens 80.0x cheaper ($0.75 vs $60.00 per million) and work measured by AA Coding Index or WeirdML, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 2 or o1?

Mercury 2 costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; o1 costs $15.00 and $60.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 2 or o1?

o1, with 200K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 2 vs o1 comparison based on?

28 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Mercury 2's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and o1's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next