Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 3 vs LongCat 2.0

Mercury 3 costs 3.4x less per output token than LongCat 2.0 ($0.35 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Mercury 3Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.35
LongCat 2.0Meituan
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
vs $0.35 vs $1.20 per 1M output tokens. Mercury 3 is 3.4x cheaper.

Mercury 3 or LongCat 2.0: which to pick

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

Pick Mercury 3 for output tokens 3.4x cheaper ($0.35 vs $1.20 per million).

No benchmark has tested both yet. Mercury 3 has results on Design Arena: websites, Design Arena: UI components and Design Arena: game dev; LongCat 2.0 on AA Coding Index, SciCode and ALE-Bench. Compare them on price and context instead.

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 3 not benchmarked, LongCat 2.0 not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Mercury 3 $0.35 against LongCat 2.0 $1.20 per million output tokens, 3.4x apart.
Context window
Mercury 3 takes 1M tokens, LongCat 2.0 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index3 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 3 and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkMercury 3LongCat 2.0Leader
AA Coding IndexNot measured45.3Only LongCat 2.0 measured
SciCodeNot measured36.3%Only LongCat 2.0 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured793.5Only LongCat 2.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 3 and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkMercury 3LongCat 2.0Leader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured19.1Only LongCat 2.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 3 and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkMercury 3LongCat 2.0Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured14.0Only LongCat 2.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 3 and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkMercury 3LongCat 2.0Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured78.0%Only LongCat 2.0 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured33.7%Only LongCat 2.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 3 and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkMercury 3LongCat 2.0Leader
Design Arena: websites1242Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: UI components1255Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: game dev1225Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: data viz1192Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1237Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
General benchmarks for Mercury 3 and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkMercury 3LongCat 2.0Leader
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured65.0%Only LongCat 2.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 45 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 3$0.0003Fits in one request
LongCat 2.0$0.0009Fits in one request

Mercury 3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 3$0.0060Fits in one request
LongCat 2.0$0.019Fits in one request

Mercury 3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 3$0.024Fits in one request
LongCat 2.0$0.072Fits in one request

Mercury 3 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 3 and LongCat 2.0
SpecificationInception Mercury 3Meituan LongCat 2.0
MakerInceptionMeituan
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedOctober 16, 2026July 20, 2026
Context window1M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.30
Output $/Mtok$0.35$1.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 3 better than LongCat 2.0 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mercury 3 for output tokens 3.4x cheaper ($0.35 vs $1.20 per million).

Which is cheaper, Mercury 3 or LongCat 2.0?

Mercury 3 costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.35 per million output tokens; LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 3 or LongCat 2.0?

LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

Has any benchmark tested both Mercury 3 and LongCat 2.0?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Mercury 3 has results on Design Arena: websites, Design Arena: UI components and Design Arena: game dev; LongCat 2.0 on AA Coding Index, SciCode and ALE-Bench. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next