Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #47 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 42.6 to 16.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 52.5% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 16.5% for Trinity Large Thinking.
  • Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Trinity Large Thinking accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
  • Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
ProviderAnthropicArcee AI
Noometry Index50.538.6
Released2025-11-012026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K262K
Max output64K80K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.80
Results tracked6924

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena WebDev14941238
LMArena Coding15041381
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
SciCode—36.1%
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
ALE-Bench1,025—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%—
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
BALROG43.5%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—
Vending-Bench 24,967—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%16.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14761350
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
EBR-Bench14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA44.5%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index150.09—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math14631366
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%—
ProofBench36%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%6.9%
LMArena Expert14871360
GPQA Diamond86%—
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English14381325
LMArena Chinese14701373
LMArena French14711374
LMArena German14491356
LMArena Japanese14161311
LMArena Korean14241306
LMArena Russian14471337
LMArena Spanish14581357

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following14781334

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query14801355
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text14511340
LMArena Creative Writing14451320
LMArena Multi-Turn14661342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 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; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Trinity Large Thinking does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Trinity Large Thinking share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper