GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.1 (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-5.1 (Reasoning) scores 22.3 points higher (41.0 vs 18.7) but costs 2.7× as much to run the benchmark ($676 vs $255; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.0 | 18.7 | −54.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 54.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $675.84 | $254.72 | −62.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 62.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 54.16s | 13.49s | −75.1% Trinity Large Thinking is 75.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.38 / $4.40 | $0.23 / $0.88 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs GLM-5.1 (Reasoning): 54.4% less intelligence, 62.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 75.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) scores 56.80 for $639.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (max) scores 52.30 for $172.
GLM-5.1 (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-5-1/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-1/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill