ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Trinity Large Thinking vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Mercury Edit 2

Too close to call on our weighted score (Trinity Large Thinking 55, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B 54, Mercury Edit 2 35). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Arcee AI

    Trinity Large Thinking

    Released Apr 1, 2026Beta

    55/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.25 / $0.80
    • Context524K
  2. NVIDIA

    Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B

    Released Mar 11, 2026

    54/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.20 / $0.80
    • Context262K
  3. Inception

    Mercury Edit 2

    Released Mar 30, 2026

    35/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.25 / $0.75
    • Context32K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Trinity Large Thinking 55/100, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B 54/100, Mercury Edit 2 35/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B 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 priceNemotron 3 Super 120B A12BNemotron 3 Super 120B A12B $0.35 · Mercury Edit 2 $0.375 · Trinity Large Thinking $0.388 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B 262,144 · Mercury Edit 2 32,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsTrinity Large Thinking: Text · Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B: Text · Mercury Edit 2: Text
  • Self-hostingTrinity Large Thinking and Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12BPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightTrinity Large ThinkingNemotron 3 Super 120B A12BMercury Edit 2
Price50%697270
Inputs & features30%35350
Context window20%49370
Overall100%55/10054/10035/100

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.

Trinity Large Thinking vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Mercury Edit 2 specifications side by side
SpecificationTrinity Large ThinkingArcee AINemotron 3 Super 120B A12BNVIDIAMercury Edit 2Inception
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$0.25$0.20 (best)$0.25
Output$0.80$0.80$0.75 (best)
Cached input$0.06—$0.025 (best)
Blended (3:1)$0.388$0.35 (best)$0.375
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Arcee APIOfficial Nvidia APIOfficial Inception API
Limits
Context window524,288 tokens (best)262,144 tokens32,000 tokens
Max output262,144 tokens (best)262,144 tokens (best)8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesYesNo
Tool callingYesYesNo
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenMDW-1.1OpenProprietary
API model IDtrinity-large-thinkingnvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12bmercury-edit-2
API providers619 (best)1
ReleasedApr 1, 2026Mar 11, 2026Mar 30, 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.

  • Trinity Large Thinking$4.10
  • Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B$3.60
  • Mercury Edit 2$4.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Trinity Large Thinking, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B or Mercury Edit 2?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Trinity Large Thinking 55/100, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B 54/100, Mercury Edit 2 35/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B 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, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B or Mercury Edit 2?

Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.80 output per million tokens (official Nvidia API price). Mercury Edit 2 costs $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 $0.35 per million tokens for Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B versus $0.375 for Mercury Edit 2 (1.1× as much) and $0.388 for Trinity Large Thinking (1.1× 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, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B 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, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B 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 262,144 for Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B and 32,000 for Mercury Edit 2. Maximum output per response: Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144, Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B up to 262,144, Mercury Edit 2 up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Trinity Large Thinking accepts text; Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B accepts text; Mercury Edit 2 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Trinity Large Thinking and Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B publishes its weights (OpenMDW-1.1) and can be self-hosted; Mercury Edit 2 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Trinity Large Thinking is the newest, released Apr 1, 2026. Mercury Edit 2 came out Mar 30, 2026; Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B came out Mar 11, 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.