ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Toast 1 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Trinity Large Thinking comes out ahead, 55 to 47 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Mixedbread

    Toast 1

    Released Aug 13, 2026

    47/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $0.72
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Toast 1
  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 Toast 1 (47). It leads 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 · Toast 1 $0.405 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Toast 1 131,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsToast 1: Text · Trinity Large Thinking: Text
  • Self-hostingTrinity Large ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightToast 1Trinity Large Thinking
Price50%6869
Inputs & features30%2535
Context window20%2449
Overall100%47/10055/100

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.

Toast 1 vs Trinity Large Thinking specifications side by side
SpecificationToast 1MixedbreadTrinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30$0.25 (best)
Output$0.72 (best)$0.80
Cached input—$0.06
Blended (3:1)$0.405$0.388 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersOfficial Arcee API
Limits
Context window131,000 tokens524,288 tokens (best)
Max output4,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningNoYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpenMDW-1.1
API model ID—trinity-large-thinking
API providers16 (best)
ReleasedAug 13, 2026Apr 1, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
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.

  • Toast 1$4.44
  • Trinity Large Thinking$4.10
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Toast 1 or Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Toast 1 (47). It leads 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, Toast 1 or Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.80 output per million tokens (official Arcee API price). Toast 1 costs $0.30 input / $0.72 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.388 per million tokens for Trinity Large Thinking versus $0.405 for Toast 1 (1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Toast 1 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 Toast 1 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?

Trinity Large Thinking has the largest context window at 524,288 tokens, against 131,000 for Toast 1. Maximum output per response: Toast 1 up to 4,000, Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Toast 1 accepts text; Trinity Large Thinking accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Trinity Large Thinking publishes its weights (OpenMDW-1.1) and can be self-hosted; Toast 1 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Toast 1 is the newest, released Aug 13, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking came out Apr 1, 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