Celeris-1 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Trinity Large Thinking scores 4.5 points higher (10.8 vs 6.3) but costs 3.9× as much to run the benchmark ($233 vs $60.0; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Trinity Large Thinking when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 10.8 | +71.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 71.4% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $232.95 | +288.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 3.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 8.30s | +854.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 854.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Celeris-1: 71.4% more intelligence, 288.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 854.0% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Celeris-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/celeris-1/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill