GPT-5.5 (medium) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.5 (medium) by OpenAI or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-08-19.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-5.5 (medium) scores 32.7 points higher (51.4 vs 18.7) but costs 3.7× as much to run the benchmark ($939 vs $255; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.5 (medium) when you need intelligence above 18.7, and Trinity Large Thinking when 18.7 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.5 (medium) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 51.4 | 18.7 | −63.6% Trinity Large Thinking is 63.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $939.07 | $254.72 | −72.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 72.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.24s | 14.08s | +6.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 6.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $30.0 | $0.23 / $0.88 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs GPT-5.5 (medium): 63.6% less intelligence, 72.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 6.3% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.5 (medium) 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.
GPT-5.5 (medium)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-5-5-medium/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-5-medium/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill