Model comparison
Dolly 2.0-12b vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Databricks
Arcee AISummary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Dolly 2.0-12b scores higher in 0 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 53.8 to 15.2.
Side by side
| Dolly 2.0-12b | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Databricks | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 25.5 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2023-04-11 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 23.4 (#332), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 776 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
Reasoning Trinity Large Thinking leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 15.3 (#316), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 804 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 89.67 | — |
| HellaSwag | 70.8% | — |
| PIQA | 75.4% | — |
| WinoGrande | 61.8% | — |
Math Trinity Large Thinking leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 27.3 (#251), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 871 | 1366 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Dolly 2.0-12b: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1360 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 39.6% | — |
| BoolQ | 56.3% | — |
| MMLU | 26.2% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 39.2% | — |
Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 17.4 (#296), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 836 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 836 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |
Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 38.7 (#304), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 814 | 1334 |
Long Context Not comparable
Dolly 2.0-12b: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 15.2 (#311), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 851 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 864 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 740 | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Dolly 2.0-12b better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Dolly 2.0-12b or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 23.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Dolly 2.0-12b and Trinity Large Thinking share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Dolly 2.0-12b has 17 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.