Trinity Nano Preview vs Trinity Large Preview vs Ministral 14B
Ministral 14B comes out ahead, 45 to 34 and 25 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Arcee AITrinity Nano Preview
25/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context131K
- Arcee AI
Trinity Large Preview
34/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context524K
- Our pick
Mistral AIMinistral 14B
45/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.20
- Context262K
Ministral 14B is our pick
Ministral 14B is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against Trinity Large Preview (34) and Trinity Nano Preview (25). It leads on inputs & features. Trinity Large Preview wins on context window. 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 priceMinistral 14BMinistral 14B $0.20 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Trinity Nano Preview and Trinity Large Preview unpriced
- Longest contextTrinity Large PreviewTrinity Large Preview 524,288 · Ministral 14B 262,144 · Trinity Nano Preview 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsMinistral 14BTrinity Nano Preview: Text · Trinity Large Preview: Text · Ministral 14B: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Trinity Nano Preview | Trinity Large Preview | Ministral 14B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 25 | 25 | 50 |
| Context window | 40% | 24 | 49 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 25/100 | 34/100 | 45/100 |
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 Nano PreviewArcee AI | Trinity Large PreviewArcee AI | Ministral 14BMistral AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | — | — | $0.20 |
| Output | — | — | $0.20 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | — | $0.20 |
| Long-context rate | — | — | Same rate |
| Price source | — | — | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 524,288 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | OpenOpenMDW-1.1 | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | — | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Dec 1, 2025 | Jan 27, 2026 | Dec 2, 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 Nano Preview—
- Trinity Large Preview—
- Ministral 14B$2.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Trinity Nano Preview, Trinity Large Preview or Ministral 14B?
Ministral 14B is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against Trinity Large Preview (34) and Trinity Nano Preview (25). It leads on inputs & features. Trinity Large Preview wins on context window. 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 Nano Preview, Trinity Large Preview or Ministral 14B?
Ministral 14B is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.20 per million tokens for Ministral 14B versus . Trinity Nano Preview and Trinity Large Preview has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Trinity Nano Preview has not been scored yet, Trinity Large Preview has not been scored yet and Ministral 14B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Trinity Nano Preview, Trinity Large Preview and Ministral 14B 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?
Trinity Large Preview has the largest context window at 524,288 tokens, against 262,144 for Ministral 14B and 131,072 for Trinity Nano Preview. Maximum output per response: Trinity Nano Preview up to 131,072, Trinity Large Preview up to 262,144, Ministral 14B up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Trinity Nano Preview accepts text; Trinity Large Preview accepts text; Ministral 14B accepts text and images. Ministral 14B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (OpenMDW-1.1 and Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Trinity Large Preview is the newest, released Jan 27, 2026. Ministral 14B came out Dec 2, 2025; Trinity Nano Preview came out Dec 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.
