Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic

50.3

Rank #50 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 4.6 leads 46.1 to 16.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 80.9% for Claude Sonnet 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 $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
  • Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
ProviderAnthropicArcee AI
Noometry Index50.338.6
Released2026-02-172026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K80K
Input $ / M tokens$3$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$15$0.80
Results tracked5724

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.3 (#67), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena WebDev15221238
SciCode46.8%36.1%
LMArena Coding15041381
SWE-bench Verified75.2%—
DeepSWE29.9%—
FrontierCode24.3%—
WeirdML66.1%—
ALE-Bench1,327—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 39.1 (#28), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
Terminal-Bench53.4%—
APEX-Agents43%—
OSWorld 2.09.3%—
DeepResearch Bench54.9%—
OSWorld72.1%—
ExploitBench23.6%—
GBAEval48.8%—
GDP.pdf18%—
LMArena Search1221—
Vending-Bench 27,204—

Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.1 (#45), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
NYT Connections (extended)80.9%16.5%
CritPt3.1%0.9%
Thematic Generalization76.3%41.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts14841350
ARC-AGI-260.4%—
ARC-AGI-186.5%—
Chess Puzzles13%—
Mystery Game Puzzles16%—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA46.5%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index152.24—
ForecastBench62—

Math Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 52.9 (#49), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math14621366
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202585.8%—
ProofBench45%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)32.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)8.3%—

Knowledge Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.7 (#65), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.6%6.9%
LMArena Expert15001360
GPQA Diamond87.4%—
SimpleQA Verified35.5%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 38.0 (#68), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Vision1283—
Blueprint-Bench 26.7%—
LMArena Document1482—

Multilingual Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 54.4 (#41), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English14401325
LMArena Chinese14911373
LMArena French14651374
LMArena German14281356
LMArena Japanese14201311
LMArena Korean14111306
LMArena Russian14401337
LMArena Spanish14641357

Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.4 (#25), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following14751334

Long Context Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 45.3 (#44), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query14791355

Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 70.2 (#22), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text14581340
LMArena Creative Writing14351320
LMArena Multi-Turn14641342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1810—
EQ-Bench 41207—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 4.6 lists at $3 and $15.

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

Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

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

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper