Model comparison
DeepSeek-R1 vs Trinity Large Thinking
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek-R1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Arcee AISummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-R1 scores higher in 8 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek-R1 leads 46.3 to 34.1.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $2.15 for DeepSeek-R1.
- Trinity Large Thinking accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 164K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 42.3 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2025-01-20 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 164K | 262K |
| Max output | 64K | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.15 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 46.3 (#68), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 35.7% | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1381 |
| Aider Polyglot | 71.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| WeirdML | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 66.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 804.12 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.7 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 30.7 (#75), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| BALROG | 34.9% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 53.8% | — |
Reasoning DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 18.6 (#278), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1416 | 1350 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 69.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 21.2% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.29 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | — |
Math DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 43.8 (#79), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1400 | 1366 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 42.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.7% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.6% | — |
Knowledge DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 44.5 (#87), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.3% | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1394 | 1360 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 66.6% | — |
Multilingual DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 52.4 (#85), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1412 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1442 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1417 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1404 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1391 | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1411 | 1357 |
Instruction Following DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 72.0 (#143), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1382 | 1334 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.5% | — |
| IFEval | 78.4% | — |
Long Context DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1391 | 1355 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75% | — |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 61.4 (#88), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1405 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1405 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1500 | — |
| WildBench | 82.8% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 48.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-R1 better than Trinity Large Thinking?
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek-R1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1 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; DeepSeek-R1 lists at $0.50 and $2.15.
Is DeepSeek-R1 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
DeepSeek-R1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Trinity Large Thinking does, with 262K tokens against 164K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-R1 and Trinity Large Thinking share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-R1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.