Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
BenchLM
DeepSeek logo
Model A
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

DeepSeek

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Mercury 2.5

Updated September 8, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Inception logo
Model B
Mercury 2.5

Inception

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Mercury 2.5

    Mercury 2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Mercury 2.5

    Mercury 2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Mercury 2.5

    Mercury 2.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 only
39
Mercury 2.5 only
4
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
44.5
Estimated · #91/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 11 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
47.8
Estimated · #73/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 15 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
67.7
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
48.3
Estimated · #94/182
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
80.0
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Mercury 2.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
80.1
#53/121
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
$0.00028
Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5
$0.00012
Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
$0.00784
Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5
$0.00245
Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
$0.00616
Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5
$0.0031
Fits in one request

Mercury 2.5 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

$0.0028 per 1M cached input tokens

Mercury 2.5

$0.004 per 1M cached input tokens

Inception models and Mercury 2.5 launch pricing

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Reasoning

Mercury 2.5

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Proprietary

Mercury 2.5

Proprietary

License

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Proprietary

Mercury 2.5

Proprietary

Release date

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

2026-07-31

Mercury 2.5

2026-09-08

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.00784 vs $0.00245. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.00616 vs $0.0031.
Context tradeoff
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence44 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073156.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073173.2%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073145.1%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073169%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073147.8%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073182.7%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073176.7%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073170.3%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073125.2%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073125.1%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073167.0%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—
    Mercury 2.596.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—
    Mercury 2.534.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073191.6%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 07313052.0
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073179%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073152.6%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073173.3%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073156.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073182.7%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073154.2%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073154.4%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-FullStack

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073168.7%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-Hard

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073159.6%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.4%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073153.8%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073187.3%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.8%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—
    Mercury 2.538%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073178.7%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • CorpusQA 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073160.5%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073186.2%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073134.1%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chinese-SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073178.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.1%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.1%
    Source
    Mercury 2.579.0%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • HLE

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073134.8%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073189.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073186.2%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073194.8%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.4%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073133.0%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex Shortlist

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073185.7%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—
    Mercury 2.577%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 or Mercury 2.5?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 or Mercury 2.5?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 or Mercury 2.5?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 or Mercury 2.5?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00028 on DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 and $0.00012 on Mercury 2.5; repository review costs $0.00784 and $0.00245; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.00616 and $0.0031. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 or Mercury 2.5?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 260K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 8, 2026

Watch DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Mercury 2.5

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.