DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) by DeepSeek 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
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) scores 0.6 points higher (11.4 vs 10.8) but costs 2.0× as much to run the benchmark ($461 vs $233; both mid-range class). Pick DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 11.4 | 10.8 | −5.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 5.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $460.74 | $232.95 | −49.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 49.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 20.20s | 8.30s | −58.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 58.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $4.00 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25): 5.3% less intelligence, 49.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 58.9% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25)Trinity 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/deepseek-r1-0120/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-r1-0120/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill