Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Arcee AISummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 37.6 to 10.2.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1381 |
Reasoning Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1350 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Trinity Large Thinking leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1366 |
Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1360 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1373 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1334 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Trinity Large Thinking share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.