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 2026-09-09.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-5.5 (medium) scores 23.3 points higher (34.2 vs 10.9) but costs 4.0× as much to run the benchmark ($2095 vs $518; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.5 (medium) when you need intelligence above 10.9, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.9 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.5 (medium) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.2 | 10.9 | −68.1% Trinity Large Thinking is 68.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,095.12 | $518.07 | −75.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 75.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.45s | 8.78s | −23.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 23.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $30.0 | $0.25 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs GPT-5.5 (medium): 68.1% less intelligence, 75.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 23.3% faster 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 1.3 (max) scores 48.20 for $2000.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 41.90 for $280.
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