AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual vs Trinity Mini
Trinity Mini comes out ahead, 65 to 60 on our weighted score, though AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual is 15% cheaper per token.
Z.ai (Zhipu)AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual
60/100- ECI—
- Price$0.035 / $0.138
- Context66K
- Our pick
Arcee AITrinity Mini
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.045 / $0.15
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Trinity Mini is our pick
Trinity Mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual (60). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceAutoGLM Phone 9B MultilingualAutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual $0.061 · Trinity Mini $0.071 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextTrinity MiniTrinity Mini 131,072 · AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsAutoGLM Phone 9B MultilingualAutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual: Text, Images · Trinity Mini: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual | Trinity Mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 60/100 | 65/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | AutoGLM Phone 9B MultilingualZ.ai (Zhipu) | Trinity MiniArcee AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.035 (best) | $0.045 |
| Output | $0.138 (best) | $0.15 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.061 (best) | $0.071 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 2 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Dec 10, 2025 | Dec 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual$0.626
- Trinity Mini$0.75
Which should you choose?
Which is better: AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual or Trinity Mini?
Trinity Mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual (60). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual or Trinity Mini?
AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual is cheaper at $0.035 input / $0.138 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Trinity Mini costs $0.045 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.061 per million tokens for AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual versus $0.071 for Trinity Mini (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual has not been scored yet and Trinity Mini has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual and Trinity Mini yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Trinity Mini has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 65,536 for AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual. Maximum output per response: AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual up to 65,536, Trinity Mini up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual accepts text and images; Trinity Mini accepts text. AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (MIT and OpenMDW-1.1), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual is the newest, released Dec 10, 2025. Trinity Mini came out Dec 1, 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Three-way comparison
- AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual vs Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Alibaba (Qwen)
- AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual vs LFM2 24B A2BLiquid AI
- AutoGLM Phone 9B Multilingual vs Schematron V2 TurboInference.net
- Trinity Mini vs Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Alibaba (Qwen)
- Trinity Mini vs Ministral 3 3BMistral AI
- Trinity Mini vs Baichuan M2 32BBaichuan
