Trinity Large Thinking vs Mercury 2
Too close to call on our weighted score (Trinity Large Thinking 55, Mercury 2 53). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Arcee AITrinity Large Thinking
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.80
- Context524K
InceptionMercury 2
53/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.75
- Context128K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Trinity Large Thinking 55/100, Mercury 2 53/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury 2 on price and Trinity Large Thinking for long inputs. 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 2Mercury 2 $0.375 · Trinity Large Thinking $0.388 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Mercury 2 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsTrinity Large Thinking: Text · Mercury 2: Text
- Self-hostingTrinity Large ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
| Measure | Weight | Trinity Large Thinking | Mercury 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 69 | 70 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 49 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 53/100 |
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 | Mercury 2Inception |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.25 | $0.25 |
| Output | $0.80 | $0.75 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.06 | $0.025 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.388 | $0.375 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Arcee API | Official Inception API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 524,288 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 262,144 tokens (best) | 50,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | trinity-large-thinking | mercury-2 |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Apr 1, 2026 | Feb 24, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 1, 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
- Mercury 2$4.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Trinity Large Thinking or Mercury 2?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Trinity Large Thinking 55/100, Mercury 2 53/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Mercury 2 on price and Trinity Large Thinking for long inputs. 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 or Mercury 2?
Mercury 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). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.375 per million tokens for Mercury 2 versus $0.388 for Trinity Large Thinking (1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Trinity Large Thinking has not been scored yet and Mercury 2 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Trinity Large Thinking and Mercury 2 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 128,000 for Mercury 2. Maximum output per response: Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144, Mercury 2 up to 50,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Trinity Large Thinking accepts text; Mercury 2 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; Mercury 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Trinity Large Thinking is the newest, released Apr 1, 2026. Mercury 2 came out Feb 24, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Mercury 2 Jan 1, 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
- Add Mercury Edit 2Three-way comparison
- Trinity Large Thinking vs Mercury Edit 2Inception
- 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
- Mercury 2 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12BNVIDIA
- Mercury 2 vs Seed 1.8ByteDance Seed
