Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Trinity Large Thinking vs Step 3.5 Flash

Step 3.5 Flash leads Trinity Large Thinking on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 17.0 to 10.8, and Step 3.5 Flash costs 2.7x less per output token ($0.30 vs $0.80 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 35 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Trinity Large Thinking Replace Step 3.5 Flash
Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.80
0
Step 3.5 FlashStepFun
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.30
35
vs boards won of 35 shared

Trinity Large Thinking or Step 3.5 Flash: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Trinity Large Thinking for work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Model ATrinity Large ThinkingArcee AINot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BStep 3.5 FlashStepFunNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
35
Trinity Large Thinking only
17
Step 3.5 Flash only
0
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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 not benchmarked, Step 3.5 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 11.7 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Trinity Large Thinking 38.0% against Step 3.5 Flash 63.0%, 25.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Trinity Large Thinking $0.80 against Step 3.5 Flash $0.30 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
Context window
Both take 262K tokens.

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 ThinkingBarsStep 3.5 FlashTies
Coding03
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge04
General019
All shared boards035
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingStep 3.5 FlashLeader
LMArena WebDev1238Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
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%32.6%Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: coding13571436Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT13621434Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena WebDev: React1231Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1240Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.817.0Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingStep 3.5 FlashLeader
AA Agentic Index1.0Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
τ²-Bench Telecom90.1%94.4%Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingStep 3.5 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)75.2%83.1%Step 3.5 Flash
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)15.8%24.5%Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts13421411Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: expert13591421Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13561421Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingStep 3.5 FlashLeader
LMArena Text: math13651408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work13501421Step 3.5 Flash
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 Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingStep 3.5 FlashLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)57.9%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)54.7%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: science13551415Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13491408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government13451408Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance13291394Step 3.5 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingStep 3.5 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1137Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: UI components1042Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: game dev1078Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: data viz1098Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: 3D1081Not 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 index019
General benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingStep 3.5 FlashLeader
IFBench56.3%66.5%Step 3.5 Flash
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)38.0%63.0%Step 3.5 Flash
Surface Evolver Bench15.6%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text13401403Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following13261385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing13081357Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: English13561417Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: non-English13251385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese13711446Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: German13561405Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Japanese13121353Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Korean13061351Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: French13661421Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Spanish13271419Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Russian13381385Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: Polish13121389Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: multi-turn13201404Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries13181402Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language13171372Step 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12961360Step 3.5 Flash
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 Step 3.5 Flash
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingStep 3.5 FlashLeader
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
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.015Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.0059Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.058Fits in one request
Step 3.5 Flash$0.023Fits in one request

Step 3.5 Flash 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 Step 3.5 Flash
SpecificationArcee AI Trinity Large ThinkingStepFun Step 3.5 Flash
MakerArcee AIStepFun
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 1, 2026January 29, 2026
Context window262K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.10
Output $/Mtok$0.80$0.30
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Trinity Large Thinking better than Step 3.5 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Trinity Large Thinking for work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Trinity Large Thinking or Step 3.5 Flash?

Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Step 3.5 Flash costs $0.10 and $0.30. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Trinity Large Thinking or Step 3.5 Flash?

Neither: both take 262K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Trinity Large Thinking vs Step 3.5 Flash comparison based on?

35 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Step 3.5 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next