Ling 3.0 Flash vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.0 Flash by InclusionAI 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.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Ling 3.0 Flash
Trinity Large Thinking vs Ling 3.0 Flash: 50.5% less intelligence, 297.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 1.4% faster end-to-end.
| Metric | Ling 3.0 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.8 | 18.7 | −50.5% Trinity Large Thinking is 50.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $72.81 | $289.19 | +297.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 4.0× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 9.60s | 9.47s | −1.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 1.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.07 / $0.22 | $0.25 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Ling 3.0 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Agnes 2.5 Pro Beta scores 49.10 for $55.6.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 57.50 for $138.
Ling 3.0 FlashTrinity 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/ling-3-0-flash/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-0-flash/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill