Trinity Large Preview vs DeepSeek OCR 2 vs Step 3.5 Flash
Too close to call on our weighted score (Step 3.5 Flash 35, Trinity Large Preview 34, DeepSeek OCR 2 15). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Arcee AITrinity Large Preview
34/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context524K
DeepSeekDeepSeek OCR 2
15/100- ECI—
- Price$0.89 / $1.47
- Context8K
StepFunStep 3.5 Flash
35/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.30
- Context256K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Step 3.5 Flash 35/100, Trinity Large Preview 34/100, DeepSeek OCR 2 15/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Step 3.5 Flash on price and Trinity Large Preview for long inputs. 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 priceStep 3.5 FlashStep 3.5 Flash $0.15 · DeepSeek OCR 2 $1.03 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Trinity Large Preview unpriced
- Longest contextTrinity Large PreviewTrinity Large Preview 524,288 · Step 3.5 Flash 256,000 · DeepSeek OCR 2 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsDeepSeek OCR 2Trinity Large Preview: Text · DeepSeek OCR 2: Text, Images · Step 3.5 Flash: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Trinity Large Preview | DeepSeek OCR 2 | Step 3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 25 | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 40% | 49 | 0 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 34/100 | 15/100 | 35/100 |
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 | Trinity Large PreviewArcee AI | DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek | Step 3.5 FlashStepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | — | $0.89 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | — | $1.47 | $0.30 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.02 |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $1.03 | $0.15 (best) |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Median of 1 providers | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 524,288 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens | 256,000 tokens |
| Max output | 262,144 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens | 256,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | Yeslow · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | step-3.5-flash |
| API providers | 1 | 2 | 8 (best) |
| Released | Jan 27, 2026 | Jan 27, 2026 | Jan 29, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Trinity Large Preview—
- DeepSeek OCR 2$11.83
- Step 3.5 Flash$1.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Trinity Large Preview, DeepSeek OCR 2 or Step 3.5 Flash?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Step 3.5 Flash 35/100, Trinity Large Preview 34/100, DeepSeek OCR 2 15/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Step 3.5 Flash on price and Trinity Large Preview for long inputs. 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, Trinity Large Preview, DeepSeek OCR 2 or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). DeepSeek OCR 2 costs $0.89 input / $1.47 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Step 3.5 Flash versus $1.03 for DeepSeek OCR 2 (6.9× 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. Trinity Large Preview has not been scored yet, DeepSeek OCR 2 has not been scored yet and Step 3.5 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Trinity Large Preview, DeepSeek OCR 2 and Step 3.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that DeepSeek OCR 2 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Trinity Large Preview has the largest context window at 524,288 tokens, against 256,000 for Step 3.5 Flash and 8,192 for DeepSeek OCR 2. Maximum output per response: Trinity Large Preview up to 262,144, DeepSeek OCR 2 up to 8,192, Step 3.5 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Trinity Large Preview accepts text; DeepSeek OCR 2 accepts text and images; Step 3.5 Flash accepts text. DeepSeek OCR 2 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (OpenMDW-1.1), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Step 3.5 Flash is the newest, released Jan 29, 2026. Trinity Large Preview came out Jan 27, 2026; DeepSeek OCR 2 came out Jan 27, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.5 Flash Jan 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.
