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
Tencent logo
Model A
Hy4 preview

Tencent

61.03/100

Estimated · Public rank #60

90% interval 38.077.5

Hy4 preview 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

    Hy4 preview

    Hy4 preview has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Hy4 preview and Mercury 2.5 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Hy4 preview and Mercury 2.5 are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

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
Hy4 preview only
27
Mercury 2.5 only
4
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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

Directional only
Hy4 preview
58.6
Estimated · #30/152
Mercury 2.5
44.5
Estimated · #91/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 13 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Hy4 preview
59.6
Estimated · #24/151
Mercury 2.5
47.8
Estimated · #73/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Hy4 preview
57.0
Estimated · #46/182
Mercury 2.5
48.3
Estimated · #94/182
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Hy4 preview
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
67.7
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Hy4 preview
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Hy4 preview
Not ranked
Mercury 2.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Hy4 preview
84.8
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Mercury 2.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Hy4 preview
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

Hy4 preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5
$0.00012
Fits in one request

Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Hy4 preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Mercury 2.5
$0.00245
Fits in one request

Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Hy4 preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Mercury 2.5
$0.0031
Fits in one request

Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

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

Documented inputs

Hy4 preview

Not sourced

Mercury 2.5

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Hy4 preview

Not sourced

Mercury 2.5

Not sourced

Provider availability

Hy4 preview

Not sourced

Mercury 2.5

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Hy4 preview

Reasoning

Mercury 2.5

Reasoning

Weight access

Hy4 preview

Open Weight

Mercury 2.5

Proprietary

License

Hy4 preview

Open Weight

Mercury 2.5

Proprietary

Release date

Hy4 preview

2026-08-28

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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Hy4 preview 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 evidence32 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Hy4 preview85.4%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Hy4 preview78.4%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Hy4 preview83.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Hy4 preview77.2%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Hy4 preview83.7%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Hy4 preview74.1%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    Hy4 preview37.1%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    Hy4 preview62.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Hy4 preview61.7%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Hy4 preview22.8%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Hy4 preview32.1%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    Hy4 preview78.6%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Hy4 preview55.4%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Hy4 preview
    Mercury 2.596.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Hy4 preview
    Mercury 2.534.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Hy4 preview85.4%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Hy4 preview65.7%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Hy4 preview82.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Hy4 preview64.3%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Hy4 preview58.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Hy4 preview17.5%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrain Bench

    Hy4 preview35.6%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • sweMarathon

    Hy4 preview31.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Hy4 preview
    Mercury 2.538%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • CritPt

    Hy4 preview16.9%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Hy4 preview92.3%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Hy4 preview92.3%
    Source
    Mercury 2.579.0%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • HLE

    Hy4 preview55.4%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Hy4 preview43.4%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • Apex

    Hy4 preview74.2%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Hy4 preview66.2%
    Source
    Mercury 2.5

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Hy4 preview
    Mercury 2.577%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Hy4 preview 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, Hy4 preview or Mercury 2.5?

Hy4 preview scores higher for coding on the public lane, 59.6 to 47.8. Hy4 preview and Mercury 2.5 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Hy4 preview or Mercury 2.5?

Hy4 preview scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 58.6 to 44.5. Hy4 preview and Mercury 2.5 are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Hy4 preview or Mercury 2.5?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Hy4 preview or Mercury 2.5?

Hy4 preview has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 260K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 8, 2026

Watch Hy4 preview 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.