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 2026-08-19.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
LongCat 2.0 scores 15.3 points higher (34.0 vs 18.7) but costs 1.7× as much to run the benchmark ($442 vs $255; both mid-range class). 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) | 34.0 | 18.7 | −45.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 45.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $441.77 | $254.72 | −42.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 42.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 66.44s | 14.08s | −78.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 78.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.75 / $2.95 | $0.23 / $0.88 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs LongCat 2.0: 45.0% less intelligence, 42.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 78.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Gemini 3.7 Flash (medium) scores 53.40 for $278.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (max) scores 52.30 for $172.
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