Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) by Google or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-08-19.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) scores 33.3 points higher (52.0 vs 18.7) but costs 4.1× as much to run the benchmark ($1042 vs $255; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) when you need intelligence above 18.7, and Trinity Large Thinking when 18.7 is enough.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.0 | 18.7 | −64.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 64.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,042.43 | $254.72 | −75.6% Trinity Large Thinking is 75.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 30.22s | 14.08s | −53.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 53.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.50 / $9.00 | $0.23 / $0.88 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): 64.0% less intelligence, 75.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 53.4% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Sol (high) scores 57.30 for $955.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (max) scores 52.30 for $172.
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)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/gemini-3-5-flash/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemini-3-5-flash/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill