Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba or Trinity Large Thinking by Arcee AI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 29.0 points higher (39.8 vs 10.8) but costs 1.6× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $233; both mid-range class). Pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.8 | 10.8 | −72.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 72.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $362.72 | $232.95 | −35.8% Trinity Large Thinking is 35.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 50.57s | 8.30s | −83.6% Trinity Large Thinking is 83.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.15 / $0.47 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: 72.9% less intelligence, 35.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 83.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Qwen3.8-Flash-NextTrinity 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-flash-next/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-flash-next/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill