Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Muse Spark 1.3 (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 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) scores 34.3 points higher (45.1 vs 10.8) but costs 7.1× as much to run the benchmark ($1655 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.1 | 10.8 | −76.1% Trinity Large Thinking is 76.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,655.27 | $232.95 | −85.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 85.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 29.94s | 8.30s | −72.3% Trinity Large Thinking is 72.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $4.25 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh): 76.1% less intelligence, 85.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 72.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Muse Spark 1.3 (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 1.3 (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-1-3-xhigh/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/muse-spark-1-3-xhigh/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill