Ling 3.1 Flash vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 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 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 30.3 points higher (41.1 vs 10.8) but costs 4.4× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 10.8 | −73.7% Trinity Large Thinking is 73.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $232.95 | −77.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 77.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.66s | 8.30s | −39.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 39.2% faster |
| 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: 73.7% less intelligence, 77.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 39.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- 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 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-3-1-flash/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill