Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 9B vs Trinity Large Thinking

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 9B Google

25.9

Rank #341 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 40.9 to 9.7.

Side by side

Gemma 2 9BTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderGoogleArcee AI
Noometry Index25.938.6
Released2024-06-242026-04-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—80K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.25
Output $ / M tokens—$0.80
Results tracked3524

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

Category by category

Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads

Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding11731381
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%
BigCodeBench Instruct34.7%—
LiveBench Coding22.5%—
BigCodeBench Complete40.6%—

Reasoning Trinity Large Thinking leads

Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts11711350
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
LiveBench Reasoning15.2%—
LiveBench Data Analysis36.4%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.83—
LiveBench28.7%—
PIQA83.7%—

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math11831366
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%—
LiveBench Math19.8%—
MATH Level 521%—
GSM8K84.9%—

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert11471360
GPQA Diamond27.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%
BoolQ85.7%—
MMLU72.1%—

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English11881325
LMArena Chinese11851373
LMArena French11901374
LMArena German11861356
LMArena Japanese11441311
LMArena Korean11371306
LMArena Russian12001337
LMArena Spanish12001357

Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads

Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following11781334
LiveBench Instruction Following52.6%—

Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads

Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query11971355

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkGemma 2 9BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text12071340
LMArena Creative Writing12061320
LMArena Multi-Turn11931342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing841—
LiveBench Language25.5%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 9B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2 9B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper