Llama 4 Scout vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Llama 4 Scout by Meta 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
Trinity Large Thinking scores 4.3 points higher (10.8 vs 6.5) but costs 3.2× as much to run the benchmark ($233 vs $73.6; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Trinity Large Thinking when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | Llama 4 Scout | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.5 | 10.8 | +66.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 66.2% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $73.56 | $232.95 | +216.7% Trinity Large Thinking is 3.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.16s | 8.30s | +60.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 60.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.18 / $0.66 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Llama 4 Scout: 66.2% more intelligence, 216.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 60.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Llama 4 ScoutTrinity 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/llama-4-scout/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/llama-4-scout/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill