Compare / Gemini 4 Argon vs Mercury 3

Gemini 4 Argon vs Mercury 3

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 51 results on 4 sources that measured both models.

GoogleGemini 4 Argon Released 13 Oct 2026 · $2.00 in · $10.00 out
InceptionMercury 3 Released 19 Oct 2026 · $0.20 in · $0.70 out
Gemini 4 Argon wins 287 too close to callMercury 3 wins 16

Of the 51 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 20 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-20-96eb40c3ec63).

Gemini 4 Argon or Mercury 3? The short answer

Pick Gemini 4 Argon if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 76 against 39). Pick Mercury 3 if cost matters more: it costs 9.9 times less per deck on DeckBench.

  • Spring Prompt overall: Gemini 4 Argon 76, Mercury 3 39 (out of 100; how the score works).
  • Mercury 3 is cheaper to run: $0.012 against $0.11 per deck on DeckBench (9.9 times less).
  • Mercury 3 is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 13 Oct 2026 for Gemini 4 Argon.
  • On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 4 Argon does better for decks from an analysis, user surveys and marketing planning.

Head to head

76
Spring Prompt overall
39
$4.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.33
1,048,576
Context window, tokens
1,000,000

Every fact side by side

Gemini 4 ArgonMercury 3
Price per million tokens$2.00 in · $10.00 out$0.20 in · $0.70 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$4.00$0.33
Cheapest host, blended––
Cost per deck (DeckBench)$0.11$0.012
Cached input, per million–$0.020 cached input
Intelligence Index52.6–
Spring Prompt overall7639
Output speed, tokens a second––
Context window1,048,576 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Released13 Oct 202619 Oct 2026 (newer)
WeightsClosedClosed
Developer based inthe USthe US

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live 7 of 24 not measured
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is 15 of 24 18 of 24
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled 6 of 13 9 of 13
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending 8 of 24 18 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 3 of 168 not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 3 of 202 not measured
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 1 of 189 not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 1 of 153 not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess) 21 of 27 10 of 27

Their slides, side by side

The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.

First slide of Gemini 4 Argon's deck for Hearthside Coffee
Gemini 4 Argon · deck rating 1,026 · needs work
First slide of Mercury 3's deck for Hearthside Coffee
Mercury 3 · deck rating 812 · needs work

Every slide, side by side →

From our research

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureGemini 4 ArgonMercury 3
BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results
Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 11 · 7 of 32 measured $0.0036 $0.0020no reasoning
Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 27 · 15 of 32 measured 147 491no reasoning
Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 29 · 1 of 32 measured 87.5% 0.0%no reasoning
DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results
Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 13 · 4 of 24 measured $0.11 $0.0116
Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 15 · 18 of 24 measured 1,026 812
Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 14 · 20 of 24 measured 33.3% 0.0%
ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results
Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 8 · 18 of 24 measured 47.0 26.1
Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 8 · 21 of 24 measured 65.5 43.2
Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 8 · 18 of 24 measured 43.3 17.6
SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results
Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 6 · 9 of 13 measured 985 752
Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 8 · 3 of 12 measured $0.13 $0.0216
Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 6 · 12 of 13 measured 79.6 42.2
Show all 51 results (39 more)
MeasureGemini 4 ArgonMercury 3
BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results
Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 1 · 1 of 32 measured 0.0% 0.0%low reasoning
Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 29 · 3 of 32 measured 2.9 s 0.4 sno reasoning
DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results
Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 12 of 24 measured 0.0% 16.7%
Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 14 · 6 of 24 measured 33.3% 66.7%
Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 18 · 16 of 24 measured 55.2% 58.5%
Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 19 · 12 of 24 measured 50.0% 33.3%
Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 17 of 24 measured 0.0% 16.7%
Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 13 · 16 of 24 measured 54.5% 44.0%
Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 6 of 24 measured 66.7% 33.3%
Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured 0.0% 16.7%
Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 12 of 24 measured 0.0% 0.0%
Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 22 of 24 measured 0.0% 83.3%
Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 16 · 7 of 24 measured 66.7% 33.3%
Time per deckseconds, lower is better 6 · 9 of 24 measured 67.5 83.3
Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 11 of 24 measured 16.7% 16.7%
Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 20 of 24 measured 0.0% 16.7%
ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results
Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 5 · 19 of 24 measured 34.7 15.1
Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 6 · 18 of 24 measured $673,561 $104,868
Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 14 · 6 of 24 measured $0.24 $0.0533
Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured 0 0
Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 1 · 23 of 24 measured 55.4 53.8
Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 8 · 18 of 24 measured $0.55 $0.10
SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 17 results
Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 7 · 6 of 13 measured 41.5% 48.6%
Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 8 of 13 measured 66.7% 55.6%
Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 5 of 13 measured 33.3% 22.2%
Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 9 · 13 of 13 measured 97.1% 63.3%
Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 13 measured 0.0% 0.0%
Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 1 of 13 measured 11.1% 0.0%
Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 6 · 11 of 13 measured 83.3 56.8
Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 6 of 13 measured 0.0% 0.0%
Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 5 · 7 of 13 measured 11.1% 22.2%
Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 5 · 6 of 13 measured 91.8 90.8
Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 7 of 13 measured 0.0% 22.2%
Time per taskseconds, lower is better 3 · 10 of 12 measured 74.4 194
Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 6 · 11 of 13 measured 84.1% 60.7%
Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 7 of 13 measured 77.8% 88.9%
Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 4 of 13 measured 88.9% 44.4%
Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 9 of 13 measured 33.3% 44.4%
Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 12 of 13 measured 11.1% 77.8%

Quick answers

Is Gemini 4 Argon better than Mercury 3?

Pick Gemini 4 Argon if quality matters most: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 76 against 39). Pick Mercury 3 if cost matters more: it costs 9.9 times less per deck on DeckBench.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 4 Argon or Mercury 3?

Mercury 3 is cheaper to run: $0.012 against $0.11 per deck on DeckBench (9.9 times less).

Which is better for decks from an analysis, Gemini 4 Argon or Mercury 3?

Gemini 4 Argon ranks 15 of 24 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 18 for Mercury 3.

Which is better for user surveys, Gemini 4 Argon or Mercury 3?

Gemini 4 Argon ranks 6 of 13 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 9 for Mercury 3.

Which is better for marketing planning, Gemini 4 Argon or Mercury 3?

Gemini 4 Argon ranks 8 of 24 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 18 for Mercury 3.

Which is better for speed under pressure, Gemini 4 Argon or Mercury 3?

Mercury 3 ranks 10 of 27 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 21 for Gemini 4 Argon.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 4 Argon or Mercury 3?

Gemini 4 Argon: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Mercury 3.

Run Gemini 4 Argon and Mercury 3 on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.

Try the playgroundTalk to us