Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking vs Mercury 2
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking #193 (Supported); Mercury 2 #129 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Mercury 2 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking; 0 to Mercury 2.
Updated July 28, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only
- 9
- Mercury 2 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Mercury 2 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Mercury 2 yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Mercury 2.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Mercury 2 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot available | Mercury 2$0.25 input / $0.75 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking29 tok/s | Mercury 2789 tok/s | Mercury 2 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking15.00 s | Mercury 23.88 s | Mercury 2 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking200K | Mercury 2128K | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Mercury 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 71.4% | — | Not comparable |
Coding1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Mercury 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Mercury 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Mercury 2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 55.4% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Mercury 2 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Mercury 2 today?
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking: Pricing unavailable Mercury 2: $0.25 input / $0.75 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.