Trinity Mini vs Qwen3.5 4B vs Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)
Qwen3.5 4B comes out ahead, 78 to 72 and 65 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Arcee AITrinity Mini
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.045 / $0.15
- Context131K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 4B
78/100- ECI—
- Price$0.04 / $0.07
- Context262K
- Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)
72/100- ECI—
- Price$0.022 / $0.215
- Context262K
Qwen3.5 4B is our pick
Qwen3.5 4B is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) (72) and Trinity Mini (65). It leads 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 priceQwen3.5 4BQwen3.5 4B $0.048 · Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) $0.07 · Trinity Mini $0.071 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 4B and Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Qwen3.5 4B 262,144 · Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) 262,144 · Trinity Mini 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 4BTrinity Mini: Text · Qwen3.5 4B: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud): Text, Images
- Self-hostingTrinity Mini and Qwen3.5 4BPublishes downloadable weights (OpenMDW-1.1 and Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Trinity Mini | Qwen3.5 4B | Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 70 | 50 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 78/100 | 72/100 |
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 MiniArcee AI | Qwen3.5 4BAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Alibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 55.8% | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.045 | $0.04 | $0.022 (best) |
| Output | $0.15 | $0.07 (best) | $0.215 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.071 | $0.048 (best) | $0.07 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 3 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 81,920 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 5 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Dec 1, 2025 | Mar 2, 2026 | Oct 15, 2025 |
| 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 Mini$0.75
- Qwen3.5 4B$0.54
- Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)$0.65
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Trinity Mini, Qwen3.5 4B or Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)?
Qwen3.5 4B is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) (72) and Trinity Mini (65). It leads 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 Mini, Qwen3.5 4B or Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)?
Qwen3.5 4B is cheaper at $0.04 input / $0.07 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) costs $0.022 input / $0.215 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Trinity Mini costs $0.045 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.048 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 4B versus $0.07 for Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) (1.5× as much) and $0.071 for Trinity Mini (1.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Trinity Mini has not been scored yet, Qwen3.5 4B has not been scored yet and Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Trinity Mini, Qwen3.5 4B and Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 4B and Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) have the largest context windows (262,144 and 262,144 tokens), against 131,072 for Trinity Mini. Maximum output per response: Trinity Mini up to 131,072, Qwen3.5 4B up to 81,920, Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Trinity Mini accepts text; Qwen3.5 4B accepts text, images and video; Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) accepts text and images. Qwen3.5 4B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Trinity Mini and Qwen3.5 4B publishes its weights (OpenMDW-1.1 and Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 4B is the newest, released Mar 2, 2026. Trinity Mini came out Dec 1, 2025; Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud) came out Oct 15, 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 Nov 2, 2026.
