Qwen3.7 Max vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.7 Max 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
Qwen3.7 Max scores 18.7 points higher (29.5 vs 10.8) but costs 9.8× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $233; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Max when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | Qwen3.7 Max | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 29.5 | 10.8 | −63.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 63.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,277.12 | $232.95 | −89.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 89.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.57s | 8.25s | −50.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 50.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.50 / $7.50 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Qwen3.7 Max: 63.4% less intelligence, 89.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 50.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Qwen3.7 Max is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Qwen3.7 MaxTrinity 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/qwen3-7-max/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-7-max/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill