Beam 1.0 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Which is better for the money: Beam 1.0 by Reflection 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
Beam 1.0 scores 19.5 points higher (30.3 vs 10.8) but costs 1.4× as much to run the benchmark ($319 vs $233; both mid-range class). Pick Beam 1.0 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Trinity Large Thinking.
| Metric | Beam 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 30.3 | 10.8 | −64.4% Trinity Large Thinking is 64.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $318.73 | $232.95 | −26.9% Trinity Large Thinking is 26.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 8.02s | 8.30s | +3.5% Trinity Large Thinking is 3.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.40 / $1.20 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Beam 1.0: 64.4% less intelligence, 26.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 3.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Trinity Large Thinking is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Beam 1.0Trinity 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/reflection-beam/trinity-large-thinking · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/reflection-beam/trinity-large-thinking?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill