Trinity Large Thinking vs GPT-5.6 Sol vs Mercury Edit 2
Trinity Large Thinking comes out ahead, 55 to 40 and 35 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
Arcee AITrinity Large Thinking
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.80
- Context524K
OpenAIGPT-5.6 Sol
40/100- ECI161.8
- Price$4.00 / $20.00
- Context1.05M
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 GPT-5.6 Sol (40) and Mercury Edit 2 (35). GPT-5.6 Sol 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 priceMercury Edit 2Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · Trinity Large Thinking $0.388 · GPT-5.6 Sol $8.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGPT-5.6 SolGPT-5.6 Sol 1,050,000 · Trinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGPT-5.6 SolTrinity Large Thinking: Text · GPT-5.6 Sol: Text, Images, PDFs · Mercury Edit 2: Text
- Self-hostingTrinity Large ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
| Measure | Weight | Trinity Large Thinking | GPT-5.6 Sol | Mercury Edit 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 7 | 70 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 80 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 49 | 61 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 40/100 | 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 | GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI | Mercury Edit 2Inception |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 161.8 | — |
| ECI rank | — | #8 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 93.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 89.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 100% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 69.7% | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.25 (best) | $4.00 | $0.25 (best) |
| Output | $0.80 | $20.00 | $0.75 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.06 | $0.40 | $0.025 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.388 | $8.00 | $0.375 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 272K: $8.00 / $30.00 | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Arcee API | Official OpenAI API | Official Inception API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 524,288 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens (best) | 32,000 tokens |
| Max output | 262,144 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | trinity-large-thinking | gpt-5.6-sol | mercury-edit-2 |
| API providers | 6 | 40 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Apr 1, 2026 | Jul 9, 2026 | Mar 30, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Feb 16, 2026 | — |
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
- GPT-5.6 Sol$80.00
- Mercury Edit 2$4.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Trinity Large Thinking, GPT-5.6 Sol or Mercury Edit 2?
Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against GPT-5.6 Sol (40) and Mercury Edit 2 (35). GPT-5.6 Sol 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, Trinity Large Thinking, GPT-5.6 Sol 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); GPT-5.6 Sol costs $4.00 input / $20.00 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). 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 $8.00 for GPT-5.6 Sol (21× 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, GPT-5.6 Sol has an ECI of 161.8 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, GPT-5.6 Sol 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?
GPT-5.6 Sol has the largest context window at 1,050,000 tokens, against 524,288 for Trinity Large Thinking and 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2. Maximum output per response: Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144, GPT-5.6 Sol up to 128,000, Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Trinity Large Thinking accepts text; GPT-5.6 Sol accepts text, images and PDFs; Mercury Edit 2 accepts text. GPT-5.6 Sol 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; GPT-5.6 Sol and Mercury Edit 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GPT-5.6 Sol is the newest, released Jul 9, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking came out Apr 1, 2026; Mercury Edit 2 came out Mar 30, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: GPT-5.6 Sol Feb 16, 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.
