GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) by OpenAI 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
GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) scores 9.9 points higher (20.7 vs 10.8) but costs 1.4× as much to run the benchmark ($331 vs $233; both mid-range class). Pick GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 20.7 | 10.8 | −47.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 47.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $331.24 | $232.95 | −29.7% Trinity Large Thinking is 29.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 53.29s | 8.30s | −84.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 84.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $1.25 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh): 47.8% less intelligence, 29.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 84.4% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) 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.
GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh)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/gpt-5-4-nano/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-4-nano/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill