DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) by DeepSeek or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) scores 13.9 points higher (24.7 vs 10.8) but costs 1.0× as much to run the benchmark ($239 vs $233; both mid-range class). Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.7 | 10.8 | −56.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 56.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $238.91 | $232.95 | −2.5% Trinity Large Thinking is 2.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 2.71s | 8.34s | +207.7% Trinity Large Thinking is 207.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning): 56.3% less intelligence, 2.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 207.7% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning)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-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill