Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Trinity Large Thinking

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.8 to 41.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 42.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 36.1% for Trinity Large Thinking.
  • Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
  • Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderGoogleArcee AI
Noometry Index45.038.6
Released2025-03-252026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M262K
Max output66K80K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$10$0.80
Results tracked7824

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena WebDev12271238
SciCode42.8%36.1%
LMArena Coding14521381
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
GSO3.9%—
WeirdML54%—
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
CadEval64%—
ALE-Bench785.52—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
GDPval23.3%—
Remote Labor Index0.8%—
TheAgentCompany30.3%—
τ²-bench Banking13.7%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
BALROG43.3%—
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons55.4%—
Vending-Bench 2573.64—

Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
CritPt2%0.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551350
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
ARC-AGI-141%—
Chess Puzzles20%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
DTBench82.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
LMCA34.8%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math14501366
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%—
Omni-MATH41.6%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
MATH Level 595.9%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)14.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%6.9%
LMArena Expert14521360
GPQA Diamond85.3%—
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Vision1263—
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English14511325
LMArena Chinese15071373
LMArena French14721374
LMArena German14871356
LMArena Japanese14611311
LMArena Korean14341306
LMArena Russian14611337
LMArena Spanish14731357

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following14371334
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query14491355
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text14581340
LMArena Creative Writing14541320
LMArena Multi-Turn14531342
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1421—
WildBench85.7%—
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro 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; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Trinity Large Thinking share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper