Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) by Alibaba 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
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) scores 4.8 points higher (15.6 vs 10.8) but costs 2.8× as much to run the benchmark ($661 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 15.6 | 10.8 | −30.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 30.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $661.29 | $232.95 | −64.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 64.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 21.74s | 8.34s | −61.6% Trinity Large Thinking is 61.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.40 / $3.20 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning): 30.8% less intelligence, 64.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 61.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)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/qwen3-5-122b-a10b/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-5-122b-a10b/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill