Mercury Edit 2 vs Trinity Large Preview vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking comes out ahead, 40 to 34 and 0 on our weighted score.
InceptionMercury Edit 2
0/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.75
- Context32K
Arcee AITrinity Large Preview
34/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context524K
- Our pickArcee AI
Trinity Large Thinking
40/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.80
- Context524K
Trinity Large Thinking is our pick
Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 40/100 against Trinity Large Preview (34) and Mercury Edit 2 (0). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 priceMercury Edit 2Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · Trinity Large Thinking $0.388 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Trinity Large Preview unpriced
- Longest contextTrinity Large Preview and Trinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Preview 524,288 · Trinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMercury Edit 2: Text · Trinity Large Preview: Text · Trinity Large Thinking: Text
- Self-hostingTrinity Large Preview and Trinity Large ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
| Measure | Weight | Mercury Edit 2 | Trinity Large Preview | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 0 | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 40% | 0 | 49 | 49 |
| Overall | 100% | 0/100 | 34/100 | 40/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Mercury Edit 2Inception | Trinity Large PreviewArcee AI | Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.25 | — | $0.25 |
| Output | $0.75 (best) | — | $0.80 |
| Cached input | $0.025 (best) | — | $0.06 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.375 (best) | — | $0.388 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | — | Official Arcee API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 32,000 tokens | 524,288 tokens (best) | 524,288 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 |
| API model ID | mercury-edit-2 | — | trinity-large-thinking |
| API providers | 1 | 1 | 6 (best) |
| Released | Mar 30, 2026 | Jan 27, 2026 | Apr 1, 2026 |
| 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.
- Mercury Edit 2$4.00
- Trinity Large Preview—
- Trinity Large Thinking$4.10
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury Edit 2, Trinity Large Preview or Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 40/100 against Trinity Large Preview (34) and Mercury Edit 2 (0). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Mercury Edit 2, Trinity Large Preview or Trinity Large Thinking?
Mercury Edit 2 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.75 output per million tokens (official Inception API price). 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 $0.375 per million tokens for Mercury Edit 2 versus $0.388 for Trinity Large Thinking (1× as much). Trinity Large Preview has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Mercury Edit 2 has not been scored yet, Trinity Large Preview 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 Mercury Edit 2, Trinity Large Preview and Trinity Large Thinking yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Mercury Edit 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Trinity Large Preview and Trinity Large Thinking have the largest context windows (524,288 and 524,288 tokens), against 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2. Maximum output per response: Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192, Trinity Large Preview up to 262,144, Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury Edit 2 accepts text; Trinity Large Preview accepts text; Trinity Large Thinking accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Trinity Large Preview and Trinity Large Thinking publishes its weights (OpenMDW-1.1) and can be self-hosted; Mercury Edit 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Trinity Large Thinking is the newest, released Apr 1, 2026. Mercury Edit 2 came out Mar 30, 2026; Trinity Large Preview came out Jan 27, 2026.
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.
