Model decision surface
Compare AI models
Start with Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax-01, or choose any two current ranked language models. Compare capability evidence, price, context, provider availability, and weight access without pretending one field decides every use case.
Current public data
Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax-01
Live dataset updated 9/22/2026, 10:37:09 PM UTC
Open 1200×630 evidence receipt| Field | Mercury 2.5 Inception Labs | MiniMax-01 MiniMax |
|---|---|---|
| ModelCap position | #135 | #134 |
| Index score | 40.8 | 41.2 |
| Evidence | Estimatedglobal-corpus-prior over 209 held-out anchors (21%); opens from measured predecessor inception/mercury-2 (79%); shrunk 4.4 up toward the measured corpus | Estimatedpublisher-corpus-prior over 209 held-out anchors (44%); launch card against 2 resolved peers on 4 rows (56%); optimism haircut 6.45 from cross-lab-probe; shrunk 8.3 up toward the measured corpus |
| Input / 1M | $0.04 | $0.20 |
| Output / 1M | $0.15 | $1.10 |
| Pricing status | fresh | fresh |
| Context | 260K | 1M |
| Providers | 1 | 1 |
| Weight access | API only | License unverified |
Decision facts
- Mercury 2.5 is #135; MiniMax-01 is #134 on the same current language board.
- Index scores are 40.8 for Mercury 2.5 and 41.2 for MiniMax-01. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.
- Both positions use Estimated evidence.
- Listed output price per 1M tokens is $0.15 for Mercury 2.5 and $1.10 for MiniMax-01. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $0.15 for Mercury 2.5 versus $0.95 for MiniMax-01. Mercury 2.5 costs 83.7% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.
- Published context is 260,000 tokens for Mercury 2.5 and 1,000,192 for MiniMax-01.
- Weight access differs: Mercury 2.5 is none; MiniMax-01 is unknown.
These are separate published fields, not a synthetic winner. ModelCap does not collapse price, access, context, and capability evidence into a hidden recommendation score.
Popular comparisons
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Sol#1 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5#3 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Sol#3 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Grok 4.7#1 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Sol vs Grok 4.7#2 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Grok 4.7#3 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro#1 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Sol vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro#2 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro#3 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Grok 4.7 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro#4 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#1 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#2 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#3 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Qwen3.8 Max (0902) vs Grok 4.7#6 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Qwen3.8 Max (0902) vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro#6 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra#1 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Astra vs GPT-6 Sol#7 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra#3 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Astra vs Grok 4.7#7 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Astra vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro#7 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Astra vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#7 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3#1 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6 Sol#8 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3#3 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
Each comparison page is a permanent, shareable URL with the same live figures as this tool: ModelCap Index position, API pricing, context window, provider count, weight access and every shared benchmark board.