There are few: fast agents, deep research, real-time voice, coding. The other thing is that when you have a fast reasoning model, you spend more effort on thinking in the same latency budget, which pushed up quality.
We agree! In fact, there is an emerging class of models aimed at fast agentic iteration (think of Composer, the Flash versions of proprietary and open models). We position Mercury 2 as a strong model in this category.
That is also our view! We see Mercury 2 as enabling very fast iteration for agentic tasks. A single shot at a problem might be less accurate, but because the model has a shorter execution time, it enables users to iterate much more quickly.
You can think of Mercury 2 as roughly in the same intelligence tier as other speed-optimized models (e.g., Haiku 4.5, Grok Fast, GPT-Mini–class systems). The main differentiator is latency — it’s ~5× faster at comparable quality.
We’re not positioning it as competing with the largest models (Opus 4.5, etc.) on hardest-case reasoning. It’s more of a “fast agent” model (like Composer in Cursor, or Haiku 4.5 in some IDEs): strong on common coding and tool-use tasks, and providing very quick iteration loops.
Thanks for trying it and for the thoughtful feedback, really appreciate it. And we’re actively working on improving quality further as we scale the models.
Mercury v1 focused on autocomplete and next-edit prediction. Mercury 2 extends that into reasoning and agent-style workflows, and we have editor integrations available (docs linked from the blog). I’d encourage folks to try the models!
On speed/quality, diffusion has actually moved the frontier. At comparable quality levels, Mercury is >5× faster than similar AR models (including the ones referenced on the AA page). So for a fixed quality target, you can get meaningfully higher throughput.
That said, I agree diffusion models today don’t yet match the very largest AR systems (Opus, Gemini Pro, etc.) on absolute intelligence. That’s not surprising: we’re starting from smaller models and gradually scaling up. The roadmap is to scale intelligence while preserving the large inference-time advantage.
Great question! The model can more efficiently leverage existing GPU hardware---it performs more computation per unit of memory transferred; this means that on older hardware one should be able to get similar inference speeds as one would get on recent hardware with a classical LLM. This is actually interesting commercially, since it opens new ways of reducing AI inference costs.
Yes, we plan to be releasing a tech report soon. We are not open sourcing the models at launch time, but we have a roadmap of future releases in which we hope to make some of our models accessible to the research community.
That's a good point. In this context, we've been using "commodity GPUs" to refer to standard Nvidia hardware, in contrast to specialized chips like Groq and Cerebras. While these chips also achieve fast speeds, they are not nearly as ubiquitous as Nvidia GPUs. We think that matching their performance on standard Nvidia hardware can make AI much more affordable. We also support any GPUs, not just H100's.
We're going to be releasing a tech report soon, stay tuned!
Good question! We are not open sourcing the models at launch time, but we have a roadmap of future releases in which we hope to make some of our models accessible to the research community.