Mercury 2.5 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Mercury 2.5 by Inception 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.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Mercury 2.5
Trinity Large Thinking vs Mercury 2.5: 12.2% less intelligence, 6.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 89.1% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 12.3 | 10.8 | −12.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 12.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $218.11 | $232.95 | +6.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 6.8% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 4.39s | 8.30s | +89.1% Trinity Large Thinking is 89.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.25 / $0.75 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Mercury 2.5 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Mercury 2.5Trinity 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/mercury-2-5/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mercury-2-5/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill