Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort) by Anthropic or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-09-09.
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, High… scores 37.3 points higher (48.2 vs 10.9) but costs 8.4× as much to run the benchmark ($4332 vs $518; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, High… when you need intelligence above 10.9, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.9 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 48.2 | 10.9 | −77.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 77.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,331.68 | $518.07 | −88.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 88.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 29.21s | 8.78s | −69.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 69.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $0.25 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort): 77.4% less intelligence, 88.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 69.9% faster end-to-end.
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (high) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) scores 52.50 for $3803.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 41.90 for $280.
Compare something else
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-high/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-high/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill