Trinity Large Thinking vs Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview vs Mercury Edit 2
Trinity Large Thinking comes out ahead, 55 to 50 and 35 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
Arcee AITrinity Large Thinking
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.80
- Context524K
GoogleGemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview
50/100- ECI—
- Price$1.00 / $5.00
- Context131K
InceptionMercury Edit 2
35/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.75
- Context32K
Trinity Large Thinking is our pick
Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview (50) and Mercury Edit 2 (35). It leads on context window. Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview wins on inputs & features. 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 priceMercury Edit 2Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · Trinity Large Thinking $0.388 · Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview 131,072 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini Robotics-ER 1.6 PreviewTrinity Large Thinking: Text · Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Mercury Edit 2: Text
- Self-hostingTrinity Large ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
| Measure | Weight | Trinity Large Thinking | Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview | Mercury Edit 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 36 | 70 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 90 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 49 | 24 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 50/100 | 35/100 |
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 | Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI | Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 PreviewGoogle | Mercury Edit 2Inception |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.25 (best) | $1.00 | $0.25 (best) |
| Output | $0.80 | $5.00 | $0.75 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.06 | — | $0.025 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.388 | $2.00 | $0.375 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Arcee API | Median of 1 providers | Official Inception API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 524,288 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens | 32,000 tokens |
| Max output | 262,144 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | trinity-large-thinking | — | mercury-edit-2 |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Apr 1, 2026 | Apr 14, 2026 | Mar 30, 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 Thinking$4.10
- Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview$20.00
- Mercury Edit 2$4.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Trinity Large Thinking, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview or Mercury Edit 2?
Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview (50) and Mercury Edit 2 (35). It leads on context window. Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview wins on inputs & features. 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, Trinity Large Thinking, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview or Mercury Edit 2?
Mercury Edit 2 is cheaper at $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); Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview costs $1.00 input / $5.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.375 per million tokens for Mercury Edit 2 versus $0.388 for Trinity Large Thinking (1× as much) and $2.00 for Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview (5.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Trinity Large Thinking has not been scored yet, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview has not been scored yet and Mercury Edit 2 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Trinity Large Thinking, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview and Mercury Edit 2 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 Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview and 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2. Maximum output per response: Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview up to 65,536, Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Trinity Large Thinking accepts text; Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview accepts text, images, audio and video; Mercury Edit 2 accepts text. Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview 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; Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview and Mercury Edit 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview is the newest, released Apr 14, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking came out Apr 1, 2026; Mercury Edit 2 came out Mar 30, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview 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.
Related comparisons
- Trinity Large Thinking vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B ReasoningNVIDIA
- Trinity Large Thinking vs Step 3.7 FlashStepFun
- Trinity Large Thinking vs Seed 1.8ByteDance Seed
- Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview vs GLM-5V-TurboZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview vs DeepSeek V4 ProDeepSeek
- Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview vs Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed
