DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Trinity Mini
Trinity Mini comes out ahead, 65 to 41 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
DeepSeekDeepSeek R1 0528
41/100- ECI141.2
- Price$0.512 / $2.19
- Context164K
- 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 DeepSeek R1 0528 (41). It leads on price. DeepSeek R1 0528 wins on 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 priceTrinity MiniTrinity Mini $0.071 · DeepSeek R1 0528 $0.932 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextDeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek R1 0528 163,840 · Trinity Mini 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsDeepSeek R1 0528: Text · Trinity Mini: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek R1 0528 | Trinity Mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 49 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 28 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 41/100 | 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 | DeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek | Trinity MiniArcee AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 141.2 | — |
| ECI rank | #108 of 165 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 76.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 66.4% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.512 | $0.045 (best) |
| Output | $2.19 | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.932 | $0.071 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 16 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 163,840 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 16 (best) | 1 |
| Released | May 28, 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.
- DeepSeek R1 0528$9.50
- Trinity Mini$0.75
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek R1 0528 or Trinity Mini?
Trinity Mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 (41). It leads on price. DeepSeek R1 0528 wins on 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, DeepSeek R1 0528 or Trinity Mini?
Trinity Mini is cheaper at $0.045 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). DeepSeek R1 0528 costs $0.512 input / $2.19 output per million tokens (median across 16 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.071 per million tokens for Trinity Mini versus $0.932 for DeepSeek R1 0528 (13× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. DeepSeek R1 0528 has an ECI of 141.2 and Trinity Mini has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek R1 0528 and Trinity Mini yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek R1 0528 has the largest context window at 163,840 tokens, against 131,072 for Trinity Mini. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek R1 0528 up to 32,768, Trinity Mini up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek R1 0528 accepts text; Trinity Mini accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
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?
Trinity Mini is the newest, released Dec 1, 2025. DeepSeek R1 0528 came out May 28, 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 Gemini 2.5 FlashThree-way comparison
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.6
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Kimi K2 InstructMoonshot AI · ECI 139.9
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.8
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 143.7
- Trinity Mini vs Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Alibaba (Qwen)
- Trinity Mini vs AutoGLM Phone 9B MultilingualZ.ai (Zhipu)
