Compare / Mercury 3 vs Grok 4.7

Mercury 3 vs Grok 4.7

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 26 results on 2 sources that measured both models.

InceptionMercury 3 Released 19 Oct 2026 · $0.20 in · $0.70 out
xAIGrok 4.7 Released 21 Sep 2026 · $2.00 in · $6.00 out
Mercury 3 wins 32 too close to callGrok 4.7 wins 21

Of the 26 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).

Mercury 3 or Grok 4.7? The short answer

They score about the same, so pick Mercury 3: it costs 22 times less per deck on DeckBench.

  • Spring Prompt overall: Mercury 3 39, Grok 4.7 43 (out of 100; how the score works).
  • Mercury 3 is cheaper to run: $0.012 against $0.25 per deck on DeckBench (22 times less).
  • Mercury 3 is newer: released 19 Oct 2026, against 21 Sep 2026 for Grok 4.7.
  • On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Grok 4.7 does better for decks from an analysis and marketing planning.

Head to head

39
Spring Prompt overall
43
$0.33
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$3.00
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
500,000

Every fact side by side

Mercury 3Grok 4.7
Price per million tokens$0.20 in · $0.70 out$2.00 in · $6.00 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.33$3.00
Cheapest host, blended–$3.00 (xAI)
Cost per deck (DeckBench)$0.012$0.25
Cached input, per million$0.020 cached input$0.50 cached input
Intelligence Index–46.4
Spring Prompt overall3943
Output speed, tokens a second–74
Context window1,000,000 tokens500,000 tokens
Released19 Oct 2026 (newer)21 Sep 2026
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 not measured 6 of 24
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is 18 of 24 8 of 24
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled 9 of 13 not measured
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending 18 of 24 15 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls not measured 32 of 168
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge not measured 21 of 202
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality not measured 62 of 189
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers not measured 108 of 153
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess) 10 of 27 28 of 28

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 Mercury 3's deck for Hearthside Coffee
Mercury 3 · deck rating 812 · needs work
First slide of Grok 4.7's deck for Hearthside Coffee
Grok 4.7 · deck rating 1,318 · presentable as it is

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.

MeasureMercury 3Grok 4.7
DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results
Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 20 of 24 measured $0.0116 $0.25
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. 18 · 8 of 24 measured 812 1,318
Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 20 · 6 of 24 measured 0.0% 66.7%
ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results
Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 15 of 24 measured 26.1 36.6
Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 21 · 13 of 24 measured 43.2 58.2
Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 18 · 15 of 24 measured 17.6 26.9
Show all 26 results (20 more)
MeasureMercury 3Grok 4.7
DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results
Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 12 of 24 measured 16.7% 16.7%
Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 3 of 24 measured 66.7% 83.3%
Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 16 · 6 of 24 measured 58.5% 76.4%
Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 9 of 24 measured 33.3% 16.7%
Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 1 of 24 measured 16.7% 0.0%
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. 16 · 7 of 24 measured 44.0% 77.8%
Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 3 of 24 measured 33.3% 16.7%
Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 22 · 1 of 24 measured 16.7% 0.0%
Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 5 of 24 measured 0.0% 33.3%
Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 22 · 9 of 24 measured 83.3% 16.7%
Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 2 of 24 measured 33.3% 16.7%
Time per deckseconds, lower is better 9 · 22 of 24 measured 83.3 375
Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 1 of 24 measured 16.7% 0.0%
Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 1 of 24 measured 16.7% 0.0%
ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results
Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 9 of 24 measured 15.1 30.5
Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 18 · 17 of 24 measured $104,868 $187,636
Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 6 · 17 of 24 measured $0.0533 $0.42
Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured 0 0
Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 23 · 17 of 24 measured 53.8 54.6
Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 18 · 17 of 24 measured $0.10 $0.23

Quick answers

Is Mercury 3 better than Grok 4.7?

They score about the same, so pick Mercury 3: it costs 22 times less per deck on DeckBench.

Which is cheaper, Mercury 3 or Grok 4.7?

Mercury 3 is cheaper to run: $0.012 against $0.25 per deck on DeckBench (22 times less).

Which is better for decks from an analysis, Mercury 3 or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 ranks 8 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 marketing planning, Mercury 3 or Grok 4.7?

Grok 4.7 ranks 15 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, Mercury 3 or Grok 4.7?

Mercury 3 ranks 10 of 27 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 28 for Grok 4.7.

Which has the bigger context window, Mercury 3 or Grok 4.7?

Mercury 3: 1,000,000 tokens, against 500,000 for Grok 4.7.

Run Mercury 3 and Grok 4.7 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