LongCat 2.0 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: LongCat 2.0 by LongCat 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
LongCat 2.0 scores 8.3 points higher (19.1 vs 10.8) but costs 2.3× as much to run the benchmark ($545 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick LongCat 2.0 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | LongCat 2.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 19.1 | 10.8 | −43.5% Trinity Large Thinking is 43.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $544.74 | $232.95 | −57.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 57.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 35.51s | 8.25s | −76.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 76.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.75 / $2.95 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs LongCat 2.0: 43.5% less intelligence, 57.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 76.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
LongCat 2.0Trinity 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/longcat-2-0/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/longcat-2-0/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill