Inkling (xhigh) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Inkling (xhigh) by Thinking Machines 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
Inkling (xhigh) scores 23.6 points higher (42.3 vs 18.7) but costs 2.7× as much to run the benchmark ($698 vs $255; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Inkling (xhigh) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | Inkling (xhigh) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.3 | 18.7 | −55.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 55.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $698.28 | $254.72 | −63.5% Trinity Large Thinking is 63.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 35.55s | 14.08s | −60.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 60.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.00 / $4.05 | $0.23 / $0.88 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Inkling (xhigh): 55.8% less intelligence, 63.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 60.4% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Inkling (xhigh) 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.
Inkling (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/inkling/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/inkling/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill