Mercury 2 vs Space Bunny Alpha: which should you choose in 2026?
Mercury 2 (by Inception) and Space Bunny Alpha (by Stealth) 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.
Space Bunny Alpha has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $0.375 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis.
Space Bunny Alpha has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 128,000 tokens).
Choose Mercury 2 if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose Space Bunny Alpha if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
- • you need image inputs
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.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Mercury 2 | Space Bunny Alpha |
|---|---|---|
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
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 | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
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 | — | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score | 1346 ±11 | — |
Human preference score for code and web development | 1167 ±25 | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Sep 21, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Mercury 2 | Space Bunny Alpha |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Inception | Stealth |
| API provider | Inception | Space Bunny Alpha |
| Input context | 128,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 50,000 tokens | 524,288 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Mar 4, 2026 | Sep 23, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text | Text, Image, Video |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | No | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.25 | $0.00 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $0.75 | $0.00 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $0.375 | $0.00 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not 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 23, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Mercury 2 from Inception with Space Bunny Alpha from Stealth? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Mercury 2 | Space Bunny Alpha | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Mercury 2 vs Space Bunny Alpha FAQ
Which is better, Mercury 2 or Space Bunny Alpha?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Space Bunny Alpha has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $0.375 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis. Space Bunny Alpha has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 128,000 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Space Bunny Alpha has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $0.375 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis.
Which model supports more context?
Space Bunny Alpha has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 128,000 tokens).
Can I switch between Mercury 2 and Space Bunny Alpha?
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.
Related comparisons
More Mercury 2 comparisons
Ember-1
Fireworks
Ember-1 is a specialized reasoning model from Fireworks Research, built on Kimi K3.
GLM 5.3 Prime
Z.AI
GLM-5.3-Prime is the high-speed variant of Z.ai's GLM-5.3, inheriting its full capabilities while delivering 1.5–2× the output throughput through inference acceleration.
Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Max Prime is a higher-throughput variant of Qwen3.8 Max from Alibaba's Qwen team, served as a separate SKU at a higher price point.
Aion 3.5 Mini
Aion Labs
Aion 3.5 Mini is a multi-model roleplaying and storytelling system from AionLabs, built on the GLM family of models.
Aion 3.5
Aion Labs
Aion 3.5 is a multi-model roleplaying and storytelling system from AionLabs, built on the GLM family of models.
Solar Mini 4
Upstage
Solar Mini 4 is Upstage's compact, cost-efficient language model, a 35B-parameter mixture-of-experts with 3B active parameters and a 524K context window.
More Space Bunny Alpha comparisons
Qwen3.8 Max Prime
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Max Prime is a higher-throughput variant of Qwen3.8 Max from Alibaba's Qwen team, served as a separate SKU at a higher price point.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro-UltraSpeed is the fast speed edition of Xiaomi's flagship foundation model, MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
MiMo-V2.6-Flash
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Flash is an open-source foundation model developed by Xiaomi.
MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Xiaomi
MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the flagship foundation model developed by Xiaomi.
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash is an omni-modal reasoning model from Alibaba, the first Qwen model built around agentic capabilities with native audio-video understanding.
GLM 5.3 FlashX
Z.AI
GLM-5.3-FlashX is the high-speed variant of Z.ai's GLM-5.3-Flash, a native multimodal model delivering inference speeds of up to 200 tokens/s.