Advertisement
Compare/K2 Horizon 3.7B vs Mercury 2

K2 Horizon 3.7BvsMercury 2

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

MBZUAI Institute of Foundation Models

K2 Horizon 3.7B

Input
—
Output
—
Speed
—
TTFT
—
Inception

Mercury 2

Input
$0.25/M
Output
$0.75/M
Speed
881 tok/s
TTFT
4.60s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Mercury 2
Faster (tok/s)
Mercury 2
Lower Latency
Mercury 2
Benchmarks (1-1)
Tie

Pricing Comparison

MetricK2 Horizon 3.7BMercury 2
Input ($/M tokens)—$0.25
Output ($/M tokens)—$0.75
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Mercury 2$0.33

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
K2 Horizon 3.7B
—
Mercury 2
881 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
K2 Horizon 3.7B
—
Mercury 2
4.60s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. K2 Horizon 3.7B and Mercury 2 split the benchmark comparison evenly at 1–1. The tiebreaker here is price, speed, and what you actually run them on.

Pricing. Pricing varies significantly between these models — check the table above for the exact per-token rates. Many production workloads actually surface input-token cost (retrieval-augmented prompts, code-context windows), so factor both directions.

Strengths. K2 Horizon 3.7B is strongest on Coding Index (26.1), Intelligence Index (16.2). Mercury 2 leads on Coding Index (31.1), Intelligence Index (11.5).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. MBZUAI Institute of Foundation Models and Inception sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: MBZUAI Institute of Foundation Models tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Inception often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Benchmark wins tie exactly at 1–1. The tiebreaker on raw benchmark parity will be price, speed, or capability coverage.
  • Aggregate benchmark score (sum across 12 categories, capped at 100): K2 Horizon 3.7B = 42, Mercury 2 = 43. Within 15% — effectively equivalent if both meet the threshold your product requires.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
16.211.5
Coding Index
26.131.1
Math Index
——
GPQA Diamond
——
MMLU-Pro
——
LiveCodeBench
——
AIME 2025
——
MATH-500
——
Humanity's Last Exam
——
SciCode
——
IFBench
——
TerminalBench
——
K2 Horizon 3.7B1 wins
1 winsMercury 2

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, K2 Horizon 3.7B or Mercury 2?

Mercury 2 is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.38/M tokens vs $—/M for K2 Horizon 3.7B.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

It's a tie — both models win 1 benchmarks each across 12 evaluated categories. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Mercury 2 generates tokens faster at 881 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Mercury 2 has lower time-to-first-token (4.60s vs —s).

When should I use K2 Horizon 3.7B vs Mercury 2?

Choose based on your priorities: Mercury 2 for lower cost, both perform similarly on benchmarks, and Mercury 2 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.