Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Anthropic

44.1

Rank #81 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads 47.3 to 34.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 37.3% for Claude Sonnet 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 $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
ProviderAnthropicArcee AI
Noometry Index44.138.6
Released2025-09-292026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K262K
Max output64K80K
Input $ / M tokens$3$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$15$0.80
Results tracked7324

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 47.3 (#61), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena WebDev13931238
SciCode44.7%36.1%
LMArena Coding14891381
SWE-bench Verified71.3%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)71.4%—
SWE-bench Multilingual67%—
GSO14.7%—
WeirdML47.7%—
ALE-Bench796.15—
AlgoTune1.52—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 38.3 (#32), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
Terminal-Bench46.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard73.2%—
GDPval42.5%—
Remote Labor Index2.1%—
τ²-bench Airline72%—
τ²-bench Banking25.3%—
τ²-bench Retail72.4%—
τ²-bench Telecom84.9%—
Cybench60%—
DeepResearch Bench52.6%—
OSWorld62.9%—
LMArena Search1159—
METR Time Horizons67.4%—
Vending-Bench 23,839—

Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 26.9 (#125), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
NYT Connections (extended)37.3%16.5%
CritPt1.1%0.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts14621350
ARC-AGI-213.6%—
SimpleBench54.3%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.9%—
ARC-AGI-163.7%—
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval6%—
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
EBR-Bench2.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles17%—
DTBench83.2%—
LMCA38.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index146.84—
ForecastBench61.9—

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 32.3 (#216), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math14491366
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)23.9%—
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202577.8%—
ProofBench19%—
Omni-MATH55.3%—
MATH Level 597.7%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)15.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 48.4 (#76), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%6.9%
LMArena Expert14821360
GPQA Diamond82.3%—
Humanity's Last Exam13.7%—
SimpleQA Verified30.7%—
MMLU-Pro86.9%—
GPQA (HELM)68.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 34.8 (#89), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
VPCT39.8%—
LMArena Document1450—

Multilingual Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 53.4 (#69), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English14251325
LMArena Chinese14591373
LMArena French14581374
LMArena German14271356
LMArena Japanese13901311
LMArena Korean14031306
LMArena Russian14371337
LMArena Spanish14571357

Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 75.0 (#78), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following14591334
IFEval85%—

Long Context Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 45.2 (#46), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query14761355

Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 66.5 (#34), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text14391340
LMArena Creative Writing14421320
LMArena Multi-Turn14651342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1678—
WildBench85.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 4.5 lists at $3 and $15.

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

Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.3 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 Sonnet 4.5 and Trinity Large Thinking share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has 73 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper