Hy3 preview vs Mistral Small 4 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Mistral Small 4 comes out ahead, 64 to 56 and 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
TencentHy3 preview
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.176 / $0.586
- Context256K
- Our pick
Mistral AIMistral Small 4
64/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.60
- Context256K
Arcee AITrinity Large Thinking
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.80
- Context524K
Mistral Small 4 is our pick
Mistral Small 4 is the better all-round choice, scoring 64/100 against Hy3 preview (56) and Trinity Large Thinking (55). It leads on inputs & features. Trinity Large Thinking 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 priceMistral Small 4Mistral Small 4 $0.263 · Hy3 preview $0.279 · Trinity Large Thinking $0.388 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Hy3 preview 256,000 · Mistral Small 4 256,000 tokens
- Widest inputsMistral Small 4Hy3 preview: Text · Mistral Small 4: Text, Images · Trinity Large Thinking: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Hy3 preview | Mistral Small 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 76 | 77 | 69 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 60 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 36 | 49 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 64/100 | 55/100 |
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 | Hy3 previewTencent | Mistral Small 4Mistral AI | Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.176 | $0.15 (best) | $0.25 |
| Output | $0.586 (best) | $0.60 | $0.80 |
| Cached input | — | $0.015 (best) | $0.06 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.279 | $0.263 (best) | $0.388 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 4 providers | Official Mistral API | Official Arcee API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens | 524,288 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 64,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yeshigh | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 |
| API model ID | hy3-preview | mistral-small-2603 | trinity-large-thinking |
| API providers | 5 | 16 (best) | 6 |
| Released | Apr 20, 2026 | Mar 16, 2026 | Apr 1, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Hy3 preview$2.93
- Mistral Small 4$2.70
- Trinity Large Thinking$4.10
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Hy3 preview, Mistral Small 4 or Trinity Large Thinking?
Mistral Small 4 is the better all-round choice, scoring 64/100 against Hy3 preview (56) and Trinity Large Thinking (55). It leads on inputs & features. Trinity Large Thinking 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, Hy3 preview, Mistral Small 4 or Trinity Large Thinking?
Mistral Small 4 is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Hy3 preview costs $0.176 input / $0.586 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers; free on Tencent TokenHub); Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 input / $0.80 output per million tokens (official Arcee API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for Mistral Small 4 versus $0.279 for Hy3 preview (1.1× as much) and $0.388 for Trinity Large Thinking (1.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Hy3 preview has not been scored yet, Mistral Small 4 has not been scored yet and Trinity Large Thinking has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Hy3 preview, Mistral Small 4 and Trinity Large Thinking yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Trinity Large Thinking has the largest context window at 524,288 tokens, against 256,000 for Hy3 preview and 256,000 for Mistral Small 4. Maximum output per response: Hy3 preview up to 64,000, Mistral Small 4 up to 256,000, Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Hy3 preview accepts text; Mistral Small 4 accepts text and images; Trinity Large Thinking accepts text. Mistral Small 4 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (OpenMDW-1.1), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Hy3 preview is the newest, released Apr 20, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking came out Apr 1, 2026; Mistral Small 4 came out Mar 16, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Mistral Small 4 Jun 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 Oct 4, 2026.
