Mercury Edit 2 vs Trinity Large Thinking vs Trinity Mini
Trinity Mini comes out ahead, 65 to 55 and 35 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
InceptionMercury Edit 2
35/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.75
- Context32K
Arcee AITrinity Large Thinking
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.80
- Context524K
- Our pickArcee AI
Trinity Mini
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.045 / $0.15
- Context131K
Trinity Mini is our pick
Trinity Mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Trinity Large Thinking (55) and Mercury Edit 2 (35). It leads on price. 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 priceTrinity MiniTrinity Mini $0.071 · Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · Trinity Large Thinking $0.388 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Trinity Mini 131,072 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMercury Edit 2: Text · Trinity Large Thinking: Text · Trinity Mini: Text
- Self-hostingTrinity Large Thinking and Trinity MiniPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
| Measure | Weight | Mercury Edit 2 | Trinity Large Thinking | Trinity Mini |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 70 | 69 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 49 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 35/100 | 55/100 | 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 | Mercury Edit 2Inception | Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI | Trinity MiniArcee AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.25 | $0.25 | $0.045 (best) |
| Output | $0.75 | $0.80 | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.025 (best) | $0.06 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.375 | $0.388 | $0.071 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Inception API | Official Arcee API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 32,000 tokens | 524,288 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| 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 | Yes | 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 | 6 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Mar 30, 2026 | Apr 1, 2026 | 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.
- Mercury Edit 2$4.00
- Trinity Large Thinking$4.10
- Trinity Mini$0.75
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mercury Edit 2, Trinity Large Thinking or Trinity Mini?
Trinity Mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Trinity Large Thinking (55) and Mercury Edit 2 (35). It leads on price. 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, Mercury Edit 2, Trinity Large Thinking or Trinity Mini?
Trinity Mini is cheaper at $0.045 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Mercury Edit 2 costs $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 $0.071 per million tokens for Trinity Mini versus $0.375 for Mercury Edit 2 (5.3× as much) and $0.388 for Trinity Large Thinking (5.4× as much).
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 Thinking 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 Mercury Edit 2, Trinity Large Thinking and Trinity Mini 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 Thinking has the largest context window at 524,288 tokens, against 131,072 for Trinity Mini and 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2. Maximum output per response: Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192, Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144, Trinity Mini up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mercury Edit 2 accepts text; Trinity Large Thinking accepts text; Trinity Mini accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Trinity Large Thinking and Trinity Mini 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 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 Oct 4, 2026.
