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 2026-08-19.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) scores 38.1 points higher (56.8 vs 18.7) but costs 2.5× as much to run the benchmark ($639 vs $255; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 56.8 | 18.7 | −67.1% Trinity Large Thinking is 67.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $639.27 | $254.72 | −60.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 60.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 14.08s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $4.25 | $0.23 / $0.88 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh): 67.1% less intelligence, 60.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (max) scores 52.30 for $172.
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