Model comparison
GPT-5.1 vs Trinity Large Thinking
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Arcee AISummary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.1 leads 39.9 to 16.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 43.3% for GPT-5.1 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 GPT-5.1.
- GPT-5.1 accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 262K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 48.8 | 38.1 |
| Released | 2025-11-13 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 63 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 46.9 (#59), Trinity Large Thinking: 33.8 (#238)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1395 | 1238 |
| SciCode | 43.3% | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1381 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 68% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| GSO | 13.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 72.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,192 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 32.5 (#55), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 47.6% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1199 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,473 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 39.9 (#50), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.3 (#298)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 4.9% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1350 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 17.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 72.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 32% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.2% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 95.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 72.1% | — |
| LMCA | 43.9% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.66 | — |
| ForecastBench | 58.1 | — |
| LiveBench | 78.8% | — |
Math GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.3 (#45), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.9 (#149)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1446 | 1366 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 94.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 31% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.5 (#65), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.3 (#107)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1470 | 1359 |
| GPQA Diamond | 87.6% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 23.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 57.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 44.0 (#17), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1250 | — |
| VPCT | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1403 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 54.0 (#51), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.4 (#155)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1372 |
| LMArena French | 1451 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1439 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | 1312 |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1435 | 1338 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1430 | 1356 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 84.0 (#1), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.7 (#157)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1442 | 1334 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 93.3% | — |
| IFEval | 93.5% | — |
Long Context GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.2 (#139)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1448 | 1355 |
| CL-bench | 23.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17.3% | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 64.7 (#53), Trinity Large Thinking: 54.0 (#152)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1427 | 1321 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1449 | 1342 |
| WildBench | 86.3% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 80.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.1 better than Trinity Large Thinking?
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 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; GPT-5.1 lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is GPT-5.1 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.9 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1 does, with 400K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1 and Trinity Large Thinking share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.