Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 29.1 points higher (39.9 vs 10.8) but costs 11× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $233; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| Metric | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.9 | 10.8 | −72.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 72.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,632.05 | $232.95 | −91.1% Trinity Large Thinking is 91.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 64.23s | 8.34s | −87.0% Trinity Large Thinking is 87.0% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: 72.9% less intelligence, 91.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 87.0% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BTrinity 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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill