GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) by Z AI or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-08-17.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) scores 10.6 points higher (29.3 vs 18.7) but costs 1.2× as much to run the benchmark ($314 vs $255; both mid-range class). Pick GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 29.3 | 18.7 | −36.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 36.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $314.30 | $254.72 | −19.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 19.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 51.55s | 13.49s | −73.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 73.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.55 / $2.20 | $0.23 / $0.88 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs GLM-4.6 (Reasoning): 36.2% less intelligence, 19.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 73.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-4.6 (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Gemini 3.7 Flash (medium) scores 53.40 for $278.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (max) scores 52.30 for $172.
GLM-4.6 (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/glm-4-6-reasoning/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-4-6-reasoning/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill