Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mercury 2.5
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Mercury 2.5 by Inception? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 28.8 points higher (41.1 vs 12.3) but costs 4.7× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $218; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 12.3, and Mercury 2.5 when 12.3 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Mercury 2.5 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 12.3 | −70.1% Mercury 2.5 is 70.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $218.11 | −78.5% Mercury 2.5 is 78.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.64s | 4.32s | −68.3% Mercury 2.5 is 68.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.25 / $0.75 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 70.1% less intelligence, 78.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 68.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Mercury 2.5 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Ling 3.1 FlashMercury 2.5Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/mercury-2-5 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/mercury-2-5?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill