That is an interesting note. Actually it also raises a note to consider if one is going to try and compare costs. First comparing this to the Trident isn't apples to apples so not sure I'd even go there. However, I like the point you raised about cost vs the hobbyist number of tests per say.
If someone was to try and ballpark a cost one would think it is a good idea to do the minimum for whatever you are comparing the cost per test to. Example trident is minimum 4/2/2. Not that it matters but I liked your point about overall cost vs return of value on a number of tests.
Edit: to clarify - I only posted this because your point about cost, test, was interesting. Not one product vs the other.
Not apples to apples for sure because of different testing methodologies and what not, but a cost per machine run perhaps. I would like it to be more about industry trends, but would likely turn into another hill for the fanbases to fight on.