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 2026-09-09.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Trinity Large Thinking scores 4.4 points higher (10.9 vs 6.5) but costs 6.7× as much to run the benchmark ($518 vs $77.6; premium vs mid-range cost classes). 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 | 10.9 | +67.7% Trinity Large Thinking is 67.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $77.58 | $518.07 | +567.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 6.7× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 6.23s | 8.78s | +40.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 40.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.19 / $0.68 | $0.25 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Llama 4 Scout: 67.7% more intelligence, 567.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 40.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.5 scores 22.30 for $42.6.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 41.90 for $280.
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