WritingmateWritingmate
Model Comparison

Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2Which Is Better in 2026?

Inception•MiniMax: MiniMax M2 logoMiniMax

Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2: which should you choose in 2026?

Mercury 2.5 (by Inception) and MiniMax M2 (by MiniMax) 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.

Mercury 2.5 is about 6.6× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.0675 vs $0.44625 per 1M tokens).

Mercury 2.5 has the larger context window (260,000 tokens vs 204,800 tokens).

Choose Mercury 2.5 if…

  • • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
  • • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases

Choose MiniMax M2 if…

  • • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage

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.

Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2 benchmark results
BenchmarkMercury 2.5MiniMax M2
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

—
61.0%
SWE-bench
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

——
Arena preference scores
Arena (Text)

Human preference score

—
1346 ±8
Arena (Code/WebDev)

Human preference score for code and web development

—
1298 ±11

Benchmark sources

Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Sep 12, 2026.

Pricing, capabilities, and model facts

Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2 model facts
FeatureMercury 2.5MiniMax M2
Context & model facts
DeveloperInceptionMiniMax
API providerInceptionMiniMax
Input context260,000 tokens204,800 tokens
Maximum output65,536 tokens131,072 tokens
Released——
Added to WritingmateSep 8, 2026Oct 23, 2025
LicenseNot availableNot available
Knowledge cutoff——
Capabilities
InputsTextText
OutputsTextText
Provider endpoint accepts tool parametersYesYes
ReasoningYesYes
VisionNoNo
Image GenerationNoNo
Video GenerationNoNo
API pricing
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.04$0.255
Output (per 1M tokens)$0.15$1.02
Blended 3:1 input/output$0.0675$0.44625
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 Mercury 2.5 from Inception with MiniMax M2 from MiniMax? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.

Subscription-plan access for Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2
PlanPriceMercury 2.5MiniMax M2AI 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

Mercury 2.5 vs MiniMax M2 FAQ

Which is better, Mercury 2.5 or MiniMax M2?

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Mercury 2.5 is about 6.6× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.0675 vs $0.44625 per 1M tokens). Mercury 2.5 has the larger context window (260,000 tokens vs 204,800 tokens).

Which model is cheaper to use through an API?

Mercury 2.5 is about 6.6× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.0675 vs $0.44625 per 1M tokens).

Which model supports more context?

Mercury 2.5 has the larger context window (260,000 tokens vs 204,800 tokens).

Can I switch between Mercury 2.5 and MiniMax M2?

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.