Noometry

Model comparison

Granite 4.2 8B vs Trinity Large Thinking

Granite 4.2 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.5 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Granite 4.2 8B IBM

40.5

Rank #148 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.2 8B scores higher in 2 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Granite 4.2 8B leads 26.6 to 16.9.
  • Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.25 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.80 for Trinity Large Thinking.
  • Trinity Large Thinking accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Granite 4.2 8BTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderIBMArcee AI
Noometry Index40.538.6
Released—2026-04-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K262K
Max output118K80K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.25$0.80
Results tracked1124

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

Category by category

Coding Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 40.5 (#137), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding13801381
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%

Reasoning Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 26.6 (#131), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts13291350
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%

Math Not comparable

Granite 4.2 8B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math—1366

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 38.4 (#145), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert13841360
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 44.5 (#178), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English13021325
LMArena Chinese13661373
LMArena Russian12851337
LMArena French—1374
LMArena German—1356
LMArena Japanese—1311
LMArena Korean—1306
LMArena Spanish—1357

Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 68.7 (#184), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following13011334

Long Context Too close to call

Granite 4.2 8B: 40.3 (#159), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query13241355

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 49.6 (#189), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text13201340
LMArena Creative Writing12361320
LMArena Multi-Turn13011342

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 4.2 8B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Granite 4.2 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.5 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 8B or Trinity Large Thinking?

Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.25 per million output tokens; Trinity Large Thinking lists at $0.25 and $0.80.

Is Granite 4.2 8B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Granite 4.2 8B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.5 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Trinity Large Thinking does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Granite 4.2 8B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.2 8B has 11 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper