# Ling 3.0 Flash vs Mercury 2.5

> Side-by-side benchmark comparison for Ling 3.0 Flash and Mercury 2.5 across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, multilingual, and math tasks.

- Canonical page: https://benchlm.ai/compare/ling-3-0-flash-vs-mercury-2-5
- Last updated: September 8, 2026

- Shared sourced benchmarks: 3
- HTML indexing: indexable
- Ranking lane: BenchAlign v5

## Quick Verdict

Evidence is too thin for a benchmark verdict: Ling 3.0 Flash and Mercury 2.5 share only 3 sourced benchmark rows.

## Summary

- Only 3 shared sourced benchmark rows are available. That is not enough for a broad capability verdict, so this mirror does not name an overall winner.
- Ling 3.0 Flash has the lower published output-token price.
- Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger published context window at 262K.

## Model Snapshot

| Property | Ling 3.0 Flash | Mercury 2.5 |
|----------|----------|----------|
| Creator | InclusionAI | Inception |
| Type | Open Weight | Proprietary |
| Reasoning | Reasoning | Reasoning |
| Context | 262K | 260K |
| Independent public score (not head-to-head) | 47.43 | null |
| Benchmarks Covered | 22 | 5 |
| Pricing (input/output) | Pricing unavailable / Pricing unavailable | $0.04 / $0.15 |

## Category Breakdown

### Agentic

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.0 Flash public-lane score: 42.5 (Estimated · #107/152)
- Mercury 2.5 public-lane score: 44.5 (Estimated · #91/152)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Mercury 2.5 | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| MCP Atlas | 65.5% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| skillsBench | 44.8% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| BFCL v4 | 73.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| WideResearch | 73.6% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| BrowseComp | 72.2% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| DRACO | 70.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 50.2% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| τ³-bench results | Coming soon | 96.0% | Coming soon |
| DeepSearchQA | Coming soon | 34.0% | Coming soon |

### Coding

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.0 Flash public-lane score: 41 (Supported · #113/151)
- Mercury 2.5 public-lane score: 47.8 (Estimated · #73/151)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Mercury 2.5 | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| SWE-bench Pro | 56.6% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SWE Multilingual | 72.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| LiveCodeBench v5 | 82.8% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SciCode | 41.2% | 38% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals) | 84.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 65.2% | Coming soon | Coming soon |

### Reasoning

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.0 Flash public-lane score: 71.2 (Unranked · 2 rankable rows)
- Mercury 2.5 public-lane score: 67.7 (Unranked · 1 rankable row)

### Knowledge

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.0 Flash public-lane score: 44.8 (Supported · #114/182)
- Mercury 2.5 public-lane score: 48.3 (Estimated · #94/182)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Mercury 2.5 | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| GPQA | 85.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| GPQA-D | 85.0% | 79.0% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| HLE | 22.7% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 84.8% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| MMLU-Pro (Vals) | 82.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |

### Instruction Following

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.0 Flash public-lane score: 75.6 (#59/121)
- Mercury 2.5 public-lane score: 80.1 (#53/121)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Mercury 2.5 | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| IFBench | 74.5% | 77% | Mercury 2.5 |

### Mathematics

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.0 Flash public-lane score: 73.7 (Unranked · 3 rankable rows)
- Mercury 2.5 public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Mercury 2.5 | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| AIME26 | 93.2% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| HMMT Feb 2026 | 87.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| IMOAnswerBench | 83.7% | Coming soon | Coming soon |

## FAQ

### Is there enough evidence to pick between Ling 3.0 Flash and Mercury 2.5?

Not yet. The models share only 3 sourced benchmark rows, so this mirror reports the available measurements and metadata without naming a broad winner.

### What can I compare safely on this page?

Published pricing, context windows, model type, and individual shared benchmark rows are directly comparable. Independent overall scores and non-overlapping benchmark coverage are labeled separately and should not be read as a controlled head-to-head result.

## Related Comparisons

- [Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash FP8](/compare/ling-3-0-flash-vs-ling-3-0-flash-fp8)
- [Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash FP8](/compare/ling-3-0-flash-fp8-vs-mercury-2-5)
- [Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin](/compare/ling-3-0-flash-vs-ling-3-0-flash-fin)
- [Mercury 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin](/compare/ling-3-0-flash-fin-vs-mercury-2-5)

## Explore More

- [Ling 3.0 Flash profile](/models/ling-3-0-flash)
- [Mercury 2.5 profile](/models/mercury-2-5)
- [Compare Pricing](/llm-pricing)
- [Alternative Finder](/tools/alternative-finder)
- [LLM Selector](/tools/llm-selector)
- [Overall Rankings](/best/overall)