Advertisement
Compare/Ling-3.0-flash-VL vs Mercury 2

Ling-3.0-flash-VLvsMercury 2

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

InclusionAI

Ling-3.0-flash-VL

Input
$0/M
Output
$0/M
Speed
145 tok/s
TTFT
2.37s
Inception

Mercury 2

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

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Ling-3.0-flash-VL
Faster (tok/s)
Mercury 2
Lower Latency
Ling-3.0-flash-VL
Benchmarks (2-0)
Ling-3.0-flash-VL

Pricing Comparison

MetricLing-3.0-flash-VLMercury 2
Input ($/M tokens)$0$0.25
Output ($/M tokens)$0$0.75
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Ling-3.0-flash-VL$0.00
Mercury 2$0.33

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Ling-3.0-flash-VL
145 tok/s
Mercury 2
881 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Ling-3.0-flash-VL
2.37s
Mercury 2
4.60s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Ling-3.0-flash-VL wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

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. Ling-3.0-flash-VL is strongest on Coding Index (57.0), Intelligence Index (24.8). Mercury 2 leads on Coding Index (31.1), Intelligence Index (11.5).

Speed. On throughput, Mercury 2 generates tokens at 881 tok/s versus 145 tok/s — about 84% faster. On time-to-first-token, Ling-3.0-flash-VL responds in 2370ms vs 4600ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. InclusionAI and Inception sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: InclusionAI 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.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Ling-3.0-flash-VL costs $0.00 ($0/year); Mercury 2 costs $18.75 ($225/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Ling-3.0-flash-VL ≈ $0.00/run, Mercury 2 ≈ $2.75/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Ling-3.0-flash-VL ≈ $0/run, Mercury 2 ≈ $125/run. Ling-3.0-flash-VL becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

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

  • On throughput, Mercury 2 is 6.08× faster (881 tok/s vs 145 tok/s). For streaming chat or real-time agents this alone often flips the recommendation.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
24.811.5
Coding Index
57.031.1
Math Index
——
GPQA Diamond
——
MMLU-Pro
——
LiveCodeBench
——
AIME 2025
——
MATH-500
——
Humanity's Last Exam
——
SciCode
——
IFBench
——
TerminalBench
——
Ling-3.0-flash-VL2 wins
0 winsMercury 2

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Ling-3.0-flash-VL or Mercury 2?

Ling-3.0-flash-VL is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.00/M tokens vs $0.38/M for Mercury 2.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Ling-3.0-flash-VL wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Mercury 2. 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 145 tok/s. Ling-3.0-flash-VL also has lower time-to-first-token (2.37s vs 4.60s).

When should I use Ling-3.0-flash-VL vs Mercury 2?

Choose based on your priorities: Ling-3.0-flash-VL for lower cost, Ling-3.0-flash-VL for stronger benchmark performance, and Mercury 2 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.