WritingmateWritingmate
Model Comparison

MythoMax 13B vs Mercury 2.5Which Is Better in 2026?

Gryphe•
Inception

MythoMax 13B vs Mercury 2.5: which should you choose in 2026?

MythoMax 13B (by Gryphe) and Mercury 2.5 (by Inception) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.

MythoMax 13B is about 1.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.06 vs $0.0675 per 1M tokens).

Mercury 2.5 has the larger context window (260,000 tokens vs 8,192 tokens).

Choose MythoMax 13B if…

  • • lower blended API cost matters for your workload

Choose Mercury 2.5 if…

  • • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
  • • you need a model with explicit reasoning support

The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.

Chat with both models
vs

Performance benchmarks

Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.

MythoMax 13B and Mercury 2.5 benchmark results
BenchmarkMythoMax 13BMercury 2.5
AutomationBench-AA

A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework.

Guardrail-aware score

——
BrowseComp

A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing.

Accuracy

——
OSWorld-Verified

A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state.

Mean task reward

——
SWE-Bench Verified

A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests.

Resolved

——
Terminal-Bench 2.1

Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol.

Mean task success

——
AutoBench

A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench.

Weighted peer-assessment score

——
GPQA Diamond

The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry.

Accuracy

——
Humanity's Last Exam

A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged.

Accuracy

——

Benchmark sources

    Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.

    Pricing, capabilities, and model facts

    MythoMax 13B and Mercury 2.5 model facts
    FeatureMythoMax 13BMercury 2.5
    Context & model facts
    DeveloperGrypheInception
    API providerMythoMax 13BInception
    Input context8,192 tokens260,000 tokens
    Maximum output3,686 tokens65,536 tokens
    Released——
    Added to WritingmateJul 2, 2023Sep 8, 2026
    LicenseNot availableNot available
    Knowledge cutoff2023-06-30—
    Capabilities
    InputsTextText
    OutputsTextText
    Provider endpoint accepts tool parametersNoYes
    ReasoningNoYes
    VisionNoNo
    Image GenerationNoNo
    Video GenerationNoNo
    API pricing
    Input (per 1M tokens)$0.06$0.04
    Output (per 1M tokens)$0.06$0.15
    Blended 3:1 input/output$0.06$0.0675
    API performance
    p95 latencyNot measuredNot measured
    Output throughputNot measuredNot measured
    Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table.

    Data sources

    • Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)

    Catalog data last updated Sep 8, 2026.

    Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?

    Comparing MythoMax 13B from Gryphe with Mercury 2.5 from Inception? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.

    Subscription-plan access for MythoMax 13B and Mercury 2.5
    PlanPriceMythoMax 13BMercury 2.5AI ImagesAI Video
    Writingmate Pro
    Most popular
    		$20/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreSora 2, VEO 3.1
    Writingmate Ultimate
    Power users
    		$60/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreSora 2, VEO 3.1
    View Plans & Pricing

    MythoMax 13B vs Mercury 2.5 FAQ

    Which is better, MythoMax 13B or Mercury 2.5?

    There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. MythoMax 13B is about 1.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.06 vs $0.0675 per 1M tokens). Mercury 2.5 has the larger context window (260,000 tokens vs 8,192 tokens).

    Which model is cheaper to use through an API?

    MythoMax 13B is about 1.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.06 vs $0.0675 per 1M tokens).

    Which model supports more context?

    Mercury 2.5 has the larger context window (260,000 tokens vs 8,192 tokens).

    Can I switch between MythoMax 13B and Mercury 2.5?

    Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.