Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Trinity Large Thinking vs Beam 1.0 501B A23B

Updated October 21, 2026. 28 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Coding
5.4
Overall
10.8
Output $/M
$0.80
0
R Beam 1.0 501B A23BReflection
Coding
33.8
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.00
28
vs boards won of 28 shared

Decision reading

Pick Beam 1.0 501B A23B for coding: it scores 33.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 5.4 for Trinity Large Thinking.

Pick Trinity Large Thinking when output tokens cost 1.3x less.

Shared results
28
Trinity Large Thinking only
24
Beam 1.0 501B A23B only
0
Like-for-like categories
6 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Trinity Large Thinking 5.4 from 1 benchmark, Beam 1.0 501B A23B 33.8 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Coding, 26.4 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: React: Trinity Large Thinking 1231 against Beam 1.0 501B A23B 1443, 35.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Trinity Large Thinking $0.80 against Beam 1.0 501B A23B $1.00 per million output tokens, 1.3x apart.
Context window
Trinity Large Thinking takes 262K tokens, Beam 1.0 501B A23B 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryTrinity Large ThinkingBarsBeam 1.0 501B A23BTies
Coding05
Reasoning03
Math02
Knowledge04
Web design02
General012
All shared boards028
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index05
Coding benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
LMArena WebDev12381437Beam 1.0 501B A23B
AA Coding Index25.8Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
SciCode40.6%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.7%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: coding13571473Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: software and IT13621461Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena WebDev: React12311443Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena WebDev: HTML12401436Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.8Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
AA Agentic Index1.0Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
τ²-Bench Telecom90.1%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Reasoning benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)75.2%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)15.8%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13421442Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: expert13591447Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13561451Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
LMArena Text: math13651459Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: mathematical work13501475Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)57.9%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)54.7%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: science13551430Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13491376Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: legal and government13451433Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: business and finance13291430Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Web design benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
Design Arena: websites11371253Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Design Arena: UI components1045Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: game dev10791222Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Design Arena: data viz1098Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: 3D1082Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: all code categories1117Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: SVG1016Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1041Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index012
General benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
IFBench56.3%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)38.0%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Surface Evolver Bench15.6%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text13401425Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: instruction following13261430Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: creative writing13081390Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: English13561436Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: non-English13251413Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: Chinese13711424Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: German1356Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1312Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: Korean1306Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: French13661461Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: Spanish1327Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: Russian13381412Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: Polish1312Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13201414Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: longer queries13181429Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: writing and language13171400Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12961399Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.0006Fits in one request
Beam 1.0 501B A23B$0.0008Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.015Fits in one request
Beam 1.0 501B A23B$0.018Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.058Fits in one request
Beam 1.0 501B A23B$0.070Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Trinity Large Thinking and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
SpecificationArcee AI Trinity Large ThinkingReflection Beam 1.0 501B A23B
MakerArcee AIReflection
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 1, 2026October 16, 2026
Context window262K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.30
Output $/Mtok$0.80$1.00
Coding index5.433.8
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Trinity Large Thinking better than Beam 1.0 501B A23B for coding?

Pick Beam 1.0 501B A23B for coding: it scores 33.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 5.4 for Trinity Large Thinking. Pick Trinity Large Thinking when output tokens cost 1.3x less.

Which is cheaper, Trinity Large Thinking or Beam 1.0 501B A23B?

Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Beam 1.0 501B A23B costs $0.30 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Trinity Large Thinking or Beam 1.0 501B A23B?

Beam 1.0 501B A23B, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Trinity Large Thinking vs Beam 1.0 501B A23B comparison based on?

28 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Beam 1.0 501B A23B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next