Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, 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 Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallb… scores 41.1 points higher (51.9 vs 10.8) but costs 9.3× as much to run the benchmark ($2177 vs $233; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallb… when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 51.9 | 10.8 | −79.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 79.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,176.82 | $232.95 | −89.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 89.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 32.10s | 8.30s | −74.1% Trinity Large Thinking is 74.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $10.0 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback): 79.2% less intelligence, 89.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 74.1% faster end-to-end.
Against the frontier
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
- 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-sonnet-5-5-xhigh/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-5-xhigh/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill