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 2026-10-17.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Beam 1.0 scores 19.5 points higher (30.3 vs 10.8) but costs 3.2× as much to run the benchmark ($740 vs $233; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Beam 1.0 when you need intelligence above 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking when 10.8 is enough.
| 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) | $739.78 | $232.95 | −68.5% Trinity Large Thinking is 68.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.31s | 8.63s | −35.2% Trinity Large Thinking is 35.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.70 / $2.10 | $0.25 / $0.80 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Trinity Large Thinking vs Beam 1.0: 64.4% less intelligence, 68.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 35.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- 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