Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 3
Mercury 3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Mercury 3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Updated October 19, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
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.
- Shared results
- 1
- Mercury 3 only
- 7
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro only
- 13
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: MiMo-V2.6-Pro. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
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.
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Mercury 3
Mercury 3 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 3
Mercury 3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Mercury 3 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Mercury 3 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
—Mercury 363.4MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
7 Mercury 3 only
1 Shared
13 MiMo-V2.6-Pro only
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.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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- Mercury 3
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- 67.9
- Estimated · #13/130
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 9 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Mercury 3
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- 63.4
- Supported · #13/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Mercury 3
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- 82.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Mercury 3
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Mercury 3
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- 69.4
- Supported · #19/186
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Mercury 3
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Mercury 3
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Mercury 3
- Not ranked
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Mercury 3 | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 67.9Estimated · #13/130 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 9 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | 63.4Supported · #13/151 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 82.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 69.4Supported · #19/186 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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
- Mercury 3
- $0.00028
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- $0.00087
- Fits in one request
Mercury 3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Mercury 3
- $0.00605
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- $0.02436
- Fits in one request
Mercury 3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Mercury 3
- $0.0075
- Fits in one request
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- $0.01812
- Fits in one request
Mercury 3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationMercury 3MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
API model ID
Mercury 3
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Mercury 3
$0.01 per 1M cached input tokens
Inception Mercury 3 models page and launch pricingMiMo-V2.6-Pro
$0.0036 per 1M cached input tokens
Xiaomi MiMo-V2.6 launchDocumented inputs
Mercury 3
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Mercury 3
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Provider availability
Mercury 3
Not sourced
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Mercury 3
Reasoning
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Reasoning
Weight access
Mercury 3
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Open Weight
License
Mercury 3
Proprietary
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Open Weight
Release date
Mercury 3
2026-10-19
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
2026-09-22
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: $0.00605 vs $0.02436. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0075 vs $0.01812.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Mercury 3 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
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, Mercury 3 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Mercury 3 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Mercury 3 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Mercury 3 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Mercury 3 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00028 on Mercury 3 and $0.00087 on MiMo-V2.6-Pro; repository review costs $0.00605 and $0.02436; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0075 and $0.01812. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Which has the larger context window, Mercury 3 or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Mercury 3
API / mo$338
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
API / mo$979
Self-host / mo$37,843
Break-even2.2B/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence21 rows
Agentic
τ³-bench results
Mercury 330.2%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp+
Mercury 355.18%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Mercury 371.3%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro76.9%SourceNot directly comparable
AutomationBench
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro53.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.90%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro89.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro62.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro94.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ExploitGym
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro17.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
DeepSWE
Mercury 346.3%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro71.9%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro leads this result
ProgramBench
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro26.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro89.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Mercury 3—MiMo-V2.6-Pro22.7 fixesSourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Mercury 389.2%SourceMiMo-V2.6-Pro—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
21 public results · 1 shared
Watch Mercury 3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,600+ readers.
Last updated October 19, 2026