Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus vs Mercury 2

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus DeepSeek

42.6

Rank #96 Confirmed

Mercury 2 Inception

38.8

Rank #167 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher in 6 categories and Mercury 2 in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads 41.5 to 33.2.
  • Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1 for DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus.
  • DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus accepts more context: 164K tokens versus 128K.
  • DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Mercury 2 specifications
DeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusMercury 2
ProviderDeepSeekInception
Noometry Index42.638.8
Released2025-09-222026-02-20
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window164K128K
Max output66K50K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$1$0.75
Results tracked1617

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 41.5 (#114), Mercury 2: 33.2 (#250)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusMercury 2
SciCode40.6%38.7%
LMArena Coding14261391
ALE-Bench745.17785.58
LMArena WebDev—1170
WeirdML—43.2%

Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 25.7 (#126), Mercury 2: 23.0 (#170)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusMercury 2
CritPt1.7%0.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts14271362
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.4%—
DTBench81.3%—
LMCA28.6%—

Math Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 35.7 (#138), Mercury 2: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusMercury 2
LMArena Math1402—

Knowledge Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —, Mercury 2: 35.6 (#170)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusMercury 2
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.3%
LMArena Expert—1358

Multilingual DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 52.3 (#87), Mercury 2: 46.8 (#153)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusMercury 2
LMArena Non-English14071331
LMArena Russian14341303
LMArena Chinese—1416

Instruction Following DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 74.4 (#96), Mercury 2: 70.4 (#161)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusMercury 2
LMArena Instruction Following14061328

Long Context DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 43.5 (#88), Mercury 2: 40.4 (#149)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusMercury 2
LMArena Longer Query14261329

Writing & Preference DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 61.3 (#87), Mercury 2: 54.0 (#151)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusMercury 2
LMArena Text14201355
LMArena Creative Writing14041289
LMArena Multi-Turn14111358

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus better than Mercury 2?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus or Mercury 2?

Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus lists at $0.30 and $1.

Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus or Mercury 2 better for coding?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.5 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus does, with 164K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Mercury 2 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has 16 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2 has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper