GPT-6 Astra (Low) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Astra (Low) by OpenAI or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-6 Astra (Low) scores 35.0 points higher (45.8 vs 10.8) but costs 6.6× as much to run the benchmark ($1537 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-6 Astra (Low) when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Astra (Low) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.8 | 10.8 | −76.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 76.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,536.78 | $232.95 | −84.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 84.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.65s | 8.25s | −29.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 29.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs GPT-6 Astra (Low): 76.4% less intelligence, 84.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 29.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Astra (Low) 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.
GPT-6 Astra (Low)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-6-astra-low/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-astra-low/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill