Compare/JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B vs Mercury 2

JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21BvsMercury 2

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

China Mobile

JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B

Input
Output
Speed
TTFT
Inception

Mercury 2

Input
$0.25/M
Output
$0.75/M
Speed
804 tok/s
TTFT
5.10s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Mercury 2
Faster (tok/s)
Mercury 2
Lower Latency
Mercury 2
Benchmarks (2-0)
JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B

Pricing Comparison

MetricJT-4.1 Flash 236B A21BMercury 2
Input ($/M tokens)$0.25
Output ($/M tokens)$0.75
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Mercury 2$0.33

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B
Mercury 2
804 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B
Mercury 2
5.10s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Pricing varies significantly between these models — check the table above for the exact per-token rates. Many production workloads actually surface input-token cost (retrieval-augmented prompts, code-context windows), so factor both directions.

Strengths. JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B is strongest on Coding Index (52.4), Intelligence Index (39.9). Mercury 2 leads on Coding Index (31.1), Intelligence Index (21.9).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. China Mobile and Inception sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: China Mobile tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Inception often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
39.921.9
Coding Index
52.431.1
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B2 wins
0 winsMercury 2

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B or Mercury 2?

Mercury 2 is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.38/M tokens vs $—/M for JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Mercury 2. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Mercury 2 generates tokens faster at 804 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Mercury 2 has lower time-to-first-token (5.10s vs —s).

When should I use JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B vs Mercury 2?

Choose based on your priorities: Mercury 2 for lower cost, JT-4.1 Flash 236B A21B for stronger benchmark performance, and Mercury 2 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.