Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 16.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 92.1% for Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
ProviderAnthropicArcee AI
Noometry Index58.238.6
Released2026-02-042026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K80K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.80
Results tracked6824

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena WebDev15471238
LMArena Coding15361381
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—36.1%
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%16.5%
Thematic Generalization80.6%41.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271350
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math15191366
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
ProofBench50%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%6.9%
LMArena Expert15461360
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English14891325
LMArena Chinese15511373
LMArena French15131374
LMArena German15021356
LMArena Japanese14841311
LMArena Korean14641306
LMArena Russian14971337
LMArena Spanish15101357

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following15231334

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query15201355
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text15031340
LMArena Creative Writing15051320
LMArena Multi-Turn15131342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Trinity Large Thinking share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper