Model comparison
Amazon Nova Pro vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Arcee AISummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Amazon Nova Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 40.9 to 27.4.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.80 / $3.20 for Amazon Nova Pro.
- Amazon Nova Pro accepts more context: 300K tokens versus 262K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Amazon | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2024-12-03 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 300K | 262K |
| Max output | 10K | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.80 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.20 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 38 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Amazon Nova Pro leads
Amazon Nova Pro: 35.1 (#229), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1270 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| LiveBench Coding | 38.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Amazon Nova Pro: 16.7 (#147), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 25% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 1.7% | — |
Reasoning Amazon Nova Pro leads
Amazon Nova Pro: 20.0 (#243), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1246 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 32.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 48.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 123.8 | — |
| LiveBench | 43.5% | — |
Math Trinity Large Thinking leads
Amazon Nova Pro: 28.5 (#243), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1252 | 1366 |
| Omni-MATH | 24.2% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 38% | — |
Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads
Amazon Nova Pro: 27.4 (#250), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.1% | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1211 | 1360 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 4.4% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 67.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 30.1% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.6% | — |
| MMLU | 82% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Amazon Nova Pro: 25.0 (#126), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 980 | — |
Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads
Amazon Nova Pro: 39.7 (#223), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1234 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1244 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1271 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1243 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1200 | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | 1203 | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | 1240 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1182 | 1357 |
Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads
Amazon Nova Pro: 64.9 (#226), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1235 | 1334 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 67.1% | — |
| IFEval | 81.5% | — |
Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads
Amazon Nova Pro: 38.1 (#205), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1255 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads
Amazon Nova Pro: 43.9 (#226), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Amazon Nova Pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1259 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1212 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1246 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 60.5% | — |
| WildBench | 77.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 37% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Amazon Nova Pro better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Amazon Nova Pro or Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Amazon Nova Pro lists at $0.80 and $3.20.
Is Amazon Nova Pro or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Amazon Nova Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.1 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Amazon Nova Pro does, with 300K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Amazon Nova Pro and Trinity Large Thinking share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Amazon Nova Pro has 38 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.