GPT-5.4 (xhigh) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.4 (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 2026-08-17.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) scores 34.4 points higher (53.1 vs 18.7) but costs 8.6× as much to run the benchmark ($2183 vs $255; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.4 (xhigh) when you need intelligence above 18.7, and Trinity Large Thinking when 18.7 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 (xhigh) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.1 | 18.7 | −64.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 64.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,182.79 | $254.72 | −88.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 88.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 102.97s | 13.49s | −86.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 86.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.50 / $15.0 | $0.23 / $0.88 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs GPT-5.4 (xhigh): 64.8% less intelligence, 88.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 86.9% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.4 (xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, High Effort) scores 61.50 for $1974.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (max) scores 52.30 for $172.
GPT-5.4 (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/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-4/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill