Model comparison
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Arcee AISummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 1 category and Trinity Large Thinking in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 53.8 to 34.1.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 33.2 | 38.6 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
Reasoning Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
Math Trinity Large Thinking leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1159 | 1366 |
Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | 1360 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1139 | 1373 |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | 1337 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |
Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1334 |
Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (33.4 vs 34.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Trinity Large Thinking share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.