Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) by Meta or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) scores 28.8 points higher (39.6 vs 10.8) but costs 5.9× as much to run the benchmark ($1385 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.6 | 10.8 | −72.7% Trinity Large Thinking is 72.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,385.40 | $232.95 | −83.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 83.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 20.85s | 8.25s | −60.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 60.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $4.25 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh): 72.7% less intelligence, 83.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 60.4% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh)Trinity 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/muse-spark-1-2/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/muse-spark-1-2/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill