Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Google
Arcee AISummary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 1 category and Trinity Large Thinking in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 53.8 to 24.0.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Arcee AI | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1366 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1360 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1373 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1337 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |
Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1334 |
Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B 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 2B and Trinity Large Thinking share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.