GLM-5.2 (Max) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.2 (Max) 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 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GLM-5.2 (Max) scores 22.9 points higher (33.7 vs 10.8) but costs 9.0× as much to run the benchmark ($2097 vs $233; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GLM-5.2 (Max) when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | GLM-5.2 (Max) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 33.7 | 10.8 | −68.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 68.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,097.29 | $232.95 | −88.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 88.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 30.10s | 8.30s | −72.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 72.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs GLM-5.2 (Max): 68.0% less intelligence, 88.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 72.4% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.2 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
GLM-5.2 (Max)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-5-2/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-2/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill