Compare / head-to-head

Claude Opus 4.6vsMercury 2

Claude Opus 4.6 leads 3 of 3 shared benchmarks. Mercury 2 is 30x cheaper per token. Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger context window (1M tokens).

Benchmarks from cited public sources; pricing from official pages; status from official provider feeds.

Shared benchmarks
3 – 0
Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Cheaper per token
Mercury 2
30x cheaper, input + output
Larger context
Claude Opus 4.6
1M tokens
Providers
2 providers
Anthropic · Inception
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic · released 2026-02-05
textvision
Context
1M
Max out
128K
Input /1M
$5 ↗
Output /1M
$25 ↗
Cached /1M
$0.5
Scores
46 · 11 core
Mercury 2
Inception · released 2026-02-24
text
Context
128K
Max out
50K
Input /1M
$0.25 ↗
Output /1M
$0.75 ↗
Cached /1M
$0.025
Scores
3 · 2 core
Quality

Benchmark matrix

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Mercury 2ΔEdge
Reported by both · 3
LMArena Elo1497.5 ↗1343.3 ↗+154.2Claude Opus 4.6
LMArena WebDev (LMArena)1545.9 ↗1170 ↗+375.9Claude Opus 4.6
WeirdML (Håvard Tveit Ihle)78% ↗43.2% ↗+34.8 ptClaude Opus 4.6
Only Claude Opus 4.6 reports · 35
SWE-bench Verified80.8% ↗not reported——
GPQA Diamond91.3% ↗not reported——
AIME 202696.7% ↗matharenanot reported——
APEX-Agents (Mercor)46.3% ↗not reported——
ARC-AGI-2 (Verified)68.8% ↗not reported——
Chess Puzzles (Epoch AI run)17% ↗epoch runnot reported——
EBR-bench (Epoch AI run)12.7% ↗epoch runnot reported——
FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run)26.8% ↗epoch runnot reported——
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run)66% ↗epoch runnot reported——
Furniture Assembly (Epoch AI run)28.3% ↗epoch runnot reported——
GSO Opt@1 (GSO)37.3% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Agentic Coding (LiveBench)49% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Coding (LiveBench)78.2% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Data Analysis (LiveBench)69.9% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Instruction Following (LiveBench)63.3% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Language (LiveBench)83.3% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Mathematics (LiveBench)89.3% ↗not reported——
LiveBench Reasoning (LiveBench)88.7% ↗not reported——
LMArena Vision (LMArena)1299.4 ↗not reported——
MCP Atlas59.5% ↗not reported——
MMMLU91.1% ↗not reported——
MMMU-Pro (no tools)73.9% ↗not reported——
MMMU-Pro (with tools)77.3% ↗not reported——
Mystery Game Puzzles (Epoch AI run)25% ↗epoch runnot reported——
OSWorld-Verified72.7% ↗not reported——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run)94.4% ↗epoch runnot reported——
SAGE (Vals AI)51.6% ↗not reported——
SimpleBench (SimpleBench)67.6% ↗not reported——
SimpleQA Verified47% ↗epoch runnot reported——
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch AI run)78.7% ↗epoch runnot reported——
tau2-bench Banking Knowledge (Sierra)27.3% ↗not reported——
Tau2-bench Retail91.9% ↗not reported——
Tau2-bench Telecom99.3% ↗not reported——
Terminal-Bench 2.065.4% ↗not reported——
Vending-Bench 2 (Andon Labs)8017.59 ↗not reported——
Only Mercury 2 reports · 0
Mercury 2 reports nothing Claude Opus 4.6 does not.
Scores tagged "epoch" or "matharena" are independent runs, used only where the lab has not published its own; ⚠ marks rows MathArena flags as released after the competition. Higher is better on every row. Δ is Claude Opus 4.6 minus Mercury 2 in the benchmark's own unit. "Not reported" means the lab has not published that figure; it is not a zero. ↗ opens the source.
Specs & pricing

Side by side

SpecClaude Opus 4.6Mercury 2Edge
Context window1M tokens128K tokensClaude Opus 4.6
Max output128K tokens50K tokensClaude Opus 4.6
Input price / 1M$5 ↗$0.25 ↗Mercury 2
Output price / 1M$25 ↗$0.75 ↗Mercury 2
Cached input / 1M$0.5 ↗$0.025 ↗Mercury 2
Input + output / 1M
Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded.
$30$1Mercury 2
Modalitiestext · visiontextClaude Opus 4.6
Released2026-02-052026-02-24—
Cited benchmark scores463—
Reliability

Provider status

All providers →
More matchups

Claude Opus 4.6 vs …

More matchups

Mercury 2 vs …

Built by Respan
Which one wins on your data?

Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run Claude Opus 4.6 and Mercury 2 on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.