Side-by-side comparison
Trinity Large Thinking vs Mercury 2
Arcee AI
Trinity Large Thinking
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.2200
Output / 1M
$0.8500
| Trinity Large Thinking | Mercury 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Arcee AI | Inception |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 262,144 | 128,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.2200 | 0.2500 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.8500 | 0.7500 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Trinity Large Thinking or Mercury 2?
Mercury 2 is cheaper than Trinity Large Thinking on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.035 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Trinity Large Thinking or Mercury 2?
Trinity Large Thinking has the larger context window at 262k tokens versus 128k tokens for Mercury 2. That means Trinity Large Thinking can ingest about 2.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Trinity Large Thinking and Mercury 2?
Trinity Large Thinking comes from Arcee AI; Mercury 2 comes from Inception. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.