HyperNova 60B 2605 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: HyperNova 60B 2605 by Multiverse Computing or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-09-01.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Trinity Large Thinking scores 0.4 points higher (18.7 vs 18.3) but costs 6.8× as much to run the benchmark ($255 vs $37.5; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Trinity Large Thinking when you need intelligence above 18.3, and HyperNova 60B 2605 when 18.3 is enough.
| Metric | HyperNova 60B 2605 | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 18.3 | 18.7 | +2.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 2.2% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $37.50 | $254.72 | +579.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 6.8× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 8.08s | 13.96s | +72.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 72.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.04 / $0.14 | $0.23 / $0.88 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs HyperNova 60B 2605: 2.2% more intelligence, 579.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 72.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- HyperNova 60B 2605 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (medium) scores 38.90 for $21.5.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 57.50 for $138.
HyperNova 60B 2605Trinity 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/hypernova-60b/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/hypernova-60b/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill