Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 33.1 points higher (43.9 vs 10.8) but costs 6.7× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 10.8 | −75.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 75.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $232.95 | −85.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 85.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 8.25s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 75.4% less intelligence, 85.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 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.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Trinity 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-3-1-flash-1019/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill