Apodex 1.1 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Apodex 1.1 by Apodex or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Apodex 1.1 scores 15.6 points higher (26.4 vs 10.8) but costs 4.0× as much to run the benchmark ($939 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Apodex 1.1 when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | Apodex 1.1 | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.4 | 10.8 | −59.1% Trinity Large Thinking is 59.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $939.06 | $232.95 | −75.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 75.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 8.34s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $3.00 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Apodex 1.1: 59.1% less intelligence, 75.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Apodex 1.1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Apodex 1.1Trinity Large ThinkingToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/apodex-1-1/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/apodex-1-1/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill