Mercury 2 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Mercury 2 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
Trinity Large Thinking vs Mercury 2: the same intelligence, 122.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 2.7% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | Mercury 2 | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 10.8 | 10.8 | Even |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $104.94 | $232.95 | +122.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 2.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 8.08s | 8.30s | +2.7% Trinity Large Thinking is 2.7% 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 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) scores 37.80 for $94.1.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Mercury 2Trinity 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/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mercury-2/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill