Advertisement
Compare/Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B vs Mercury 2

Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3BvsMercury 2

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

NVIDIA

Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B

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

MetricNemotron Cascade 2 30B A3BMercury 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
Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B
—
Mercury 2
881 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B
—
Mercury 2
4.60s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B 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. Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B is strongest on Coding Index (25.3), Intelligence Index (11.7). 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. NVIDIA and Inception sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: NVIDIA 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.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
11.711.5
Coding Index
25.331.1
Math Index
——
GPQA Diamond
——
MMLU-Pro
——
LiveCodeBench
——
AIME 2025
——
MATH-500
——
Humanity's Last Exam
——
SciCode
——
IFBench
——
TerminalBench
——
Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B1 wins
1 winsMercury 2

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B or Mercury 2?

Mercury 2 is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.38/M tokens vs $—/M for Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B.

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 Nemotron Cascade 2 30B A3B 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.