Trinity Large Thinking vs Trinity Large Preview
Trinity Large Thinking comes out ahead, 40 to 34 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Arcee AITrinity Large Thinking
40/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.80
- Context524K
- Arcee AI
Trinity Large Preview
34/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context524K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Trinity Large Thinking is our pick
Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 40/100 against Trinity Large Preview (34). It leads on inputs & features. 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 priceTrinity Large ThinkingTrinity Large Thinking $0.388 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Trinity Large Preview unpriced
- Longest contextAbout the sameTrinity Large Thinking 524,288 · Trinity Large Preview 524,288 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsTrinity Large Thinking: Text · Trinity Large Preview: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Trinity Large Thinking | Trinity Large Preview |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 40% | 49 | 49 |
| Overall | 100% | 40/100 | 34/100 |
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 ThinkingArcee AI | Trinity Large PreviewArcee AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.25 | — |
| Output | $0.80 | — |
| Cached input | $0.06 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.388 | — |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — |
| Price source | Official Arcee API | — |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 524,288 tokens | 524,288 tokens |
| Max output | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 |
| API model ID | trinity-large-thinking | — |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Apr 1, 2026 | Jan 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
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
- Trinity Large Preview—
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Trinity Large Thinking or Trinity Large Preview?
Trinity Large Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 40/100 against Trinity Large Preview (34). It leads on inputs & features. 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 Thinking or Trinity Large Preview?
Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $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 $0.388 per million tokens for Trinity Large Thinking versus . Trinity Large Preview has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Trinity Large Thinking has not been scored yet and Trinity Large Preview has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Trinity Large Thinking and Trinity Large Preview 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 and Trinity Large Preview share the same 524,288-token context window. Maximum output per response: Trinity Large Thinking up to 262,144, Trinity Large Preview up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Trinity Large Thinking accepts text; Trinity Large Preview accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (OpenMDW-1.1), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Trinity Large Thinking is the newest, released Apr 1, 2026. Trinity Large Preview came out Jan 27, 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.
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
- Trinity Large Preview vs DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek
- Trinity Large Preview vs Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
