Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic 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.
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) scores 31.5 points higher (42.3 vs 10.8) but costs 3.7× as much to run the benchmark ($860 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.3 | 10.8 | −74.5% Trinity Large Thinking is 74.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $860.33 | $232.95 | −72.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 72.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.42s | 8.30s | −38.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 38.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback): 74.5% less intelligence, 72.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 38.2% faster end-to-end.
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) 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.
Compare something else
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill