Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Google
Arcee AISummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 3 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 40.9 to 32.0.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Arcee AI | |
| Noometry Index | 35.1 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1350 | 1381 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| WeirdML | 25.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
Reasoning Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1350 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | — |
| DTBench | 63.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | — |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1352 | 1366 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1339 | 1360 |
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1391 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1353 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1294 | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | 1357 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1334 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | — |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1344 | 1355 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 28.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Trinity Large Thinking share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.