Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 3 vs Saba

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.

Mercury 3Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.35
SabaMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
6.5
Output $/M
$0.60
vs $0.35 vs $0.60 per 1M output tokens. Mercury 3 is 1.7x cheaper.

Decision reading

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

Mercury 3 has the edge where output tokens cost 1.7x less, and where the context window is larger, 1M against 33K tokens.

Shared results
0
Mercury 3 only
4
Saba only
4
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.

At a glance

Coding index
Mercury 3 not benchmarked, Saba 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 3 $0.35 against Saba $0.60 per million output tokens, 1.7x apart.
Context window
Mercury 3 takes 1M tokens, Saba 33K.

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.

CodingNot comparableSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index0 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Saba
BenchmarkMercury 3SabaLeader
Neither model has a result on 38 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Saba
BenchmarkMercury 3SabaLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured6.5Only Saba measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Saba
BenchmarkMercury 3SabaLeader
Neither model has a result on 39 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Saba
BenchmarkMercury 3SabaLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured42.4%Only Saba measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured4.3%Only Saba measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Saba
BenchmarkMercury 3SabaLeader
Neither model has a result on 13 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Saba
BenchmarkMercury 3SabaLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured61.1%Only Saba measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Saba
BenchmarkMercury 3SabaLeader
Design Arena: websites1241Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: UI components1268Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: game dev1215Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1236Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
GeneralNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Saba
BenchmarkMercury 3SabaLeader
Neither model has a result on 46 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Saba
BenchmarkMercury 3SabaLeader
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 3$0.0003Fits in one request
Saba$0.0005Fits in one request

Mercury 3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mercury 3$0.0060Fits in one request
Saba$0.012Exceeds the context window

Mercury 3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mercury 3$0.024Fits in one request
Saba$0.046Exceeds the context window

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 Saba
SpecificationInception Mercury 3Mistral Saba
MakerInceptionMistral AI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedOctober 16, 2026February 17, 2025
Context window1M33K
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.20
Output $/Mtok$0.35$0.60
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 3 better than Saba for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Mercury 3 has the edge where output tokens cost 1.7x less, and where the context window is larger, 1M against 33K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 3 or Saba?

Mercury 3 costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.35 per million output tokens; Saba costs $0.20 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 3 or Saba?

Mercury 3, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the Mercury 3 vs Saba comparison based on?

0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Mercury 3's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Saba's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next