Seed 1.6 Flash vs Trinity Large Thinking vs Trinity Mini
Seed 1.6 Flash comes out ahead, 78 to 65 and 55 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
ByteDance SeedSeed 1.6 Flash
78/100- ECI—
- Price$0.022 / $0.223
- Context256K
Arcee AITrinity Large Thinking
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.80
- Context524K
- Arcee AI
Trinity Mini
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.045 / $0.15
- Context131K
Seed 1.6 Flash is our pick
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Trinity Mini (65) 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 priceTrinity MiniTrinity Mini $0.071 · Seed 1.6 Flash $0.072 · Trinity Large Thinking $0.388 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Seed 1.6 Flash 256,000 · Trinity Mini 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSeed 1.6 FlashSeed 1.6 Flash: Text, Images · Trinity Large Thinking: Text · Trinity Mini: Text
- Self-hostingTrinity Large Thinking and Trinity MiniPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
| Measure | Weight | Seed 1.6 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking | Trinity Mini |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 69 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 49 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 78/100 | 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 | Seed 1.6 FlashByteDance Seed | Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI | Trinity MiniArcee AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.022 (best) | $0.25 | $0.045 |
| Output | $0.223 | $0.80 | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.0044 (best) | $0.06 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.072 | $0.388 | $0.071 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Over 32K: $0.045 / $0.445 | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Volcengine Ark API | Official Arcee API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 524,288 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 32,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 |
| API model ID | doubao-seed-1-6-flash-250828 | trinity-large-thinking | — |
| API providers | 2 | 6 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Aug 28, 2025 | 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.
- Seed 1.6 Flash$0.668
- Trinity Large Thinking$4.10
- Trinity Mini$0.75
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Seed 1.6 Flash, Trinity Large Thinking or Trinity Mini?
Seed 1.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Trinity Mini (65) 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, Seed 1.6 Flash, 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). Seed 1.6 Flash costs $0.022 input / $0.223 output per million tokens (official Volcengine Ark 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 $0.072 for Seed 1.6 Flash (1× 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. Seed 1.6 Flash 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 Seed 1.6 Flash, 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. 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 Seed 1.6 Flash and 131,072 for Trinity Mini. Maximum output per response: Seed 1.6 Flash up to 32,000, Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144, Trinity Mini up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Seed 1.6 Flash accepts text and images; Trinity Large Thinking accepts text; Trinity Mini accepts text. Seed 1.6 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Trinity Large Thinking and Trinity Mini publishes its weights (OpenMDW-1.1) and can be self-hosted; Seed 1.6 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Trinity Large Thinking is the newest, released Apr 1, 2026. Trinity Mini came out Dec 1, 2025; Seed 1.6 Flash came out Aug 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 Oct 4, 2026.
