ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Opus 5 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Trinity Large Thinking comes out ahead, 55 to 37 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Opus 5

    Released Jul 24, 2026

    37/100
    • ECI162.9
    • Price$5.00 / $25.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 5
  2. Our pick

    Arcee AI

    Trinity Large Thinking

    Released Apr 1, 2026Beta

    55/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.25 / $0.80
    • Context524K
    Full specs Remove Trinity Large Thinking

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Trinity Large Thinking is our pick

Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Claude Opus 5 (37). It leads on price. Claude Opus 5 wins 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 priceTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking $0.388 · Claude Opus 5 $10.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Opus 5Claude Opus 5 1,000,000 · Trinity Large Thinking 524,288 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Opus 5Claude Opus 5: Text, Images, PDFs · Trinity Large Thinking: Text
  • Self-hostingTrinity Large ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Opus 5Trinity Large Thinking
Price50%269
Inputs & features30%8035
Context window20%6049
Overall100%37/10055/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Claude Opus 5 vs Trinity Large Thinking specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Opus 5AnthropicTrinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)162.9—
ECI rank#5 of 148—
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions93.9%—
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics85.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics98.9%—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions59.9%—
Price per million tokens
Input$5.00$0.25 (best)
Output$25.00$0.80 (best)
Cached input$0.50$0.06 (best)
Blended (3:1)$10.00$0.388 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIOfficial Arcee API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens (best)524,288 tokens
Max output128,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · maxYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpenMDW-1.1
API model IDclaude-opus-5trinity-large-thinking
API providers35 (best)6
ReleasedJul 24, 2026Apr 1, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMay 2026—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Claude Opus 5$100.00
  • Trinity Large Thinking$4.10
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Opus 5 or Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Claude Opus 5 (37). It leads on price. Claude Opus 5 wins 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, Claude Opus 5 or Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.80 output per million tokens (official Arcee API price). Claude Opus 5 costs $5.00 input / $25.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.388 per million tokens for Trinity Large Thinking versus $10.00 for Claude Opus 5 (26× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Claude Opus 5 has an ECI of 162.9 and Trinity Large Thinking has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Opus 5 and Trinity Large Thinking 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?

Claude Opus 5 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 524,288 for Trinity Large Thinking. Maximum output per response: Claude Opus 5 up to 128,000, Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Opus 5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Trinity Large Thinking accepts text. Claude Opus 5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Trinity Large Thinking publishes its weights (OpenMDW-1.1) and can be self-hosted; Claude Opus 5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Opus 5 is the newest, released Jul 24, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking came out Apr 1, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 5 May 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons