Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Trinity Large Thinking

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) xAI

48.6

Rank #54 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) 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 Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads 52.3 to 16.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 85.4% for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and 16.5% for Trinity Large Thinking.
  • Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning).
  • Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
ProviderxAIArcee AI
Noometry Index48.638.6
Released2026-02-172026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output30K80K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$2.50$0.80
Results tracked4624

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 42.1 (#112), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena WebDev13751238
LMArena Coding14591381
SciCode—36.1%
WeirdML52.3%—
ALE-Bench1,150—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 34.4 (#46), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
Terminal-Bench57.3%—
τ²-bench Banking18%—
LMArena Search1189—
Vending-Bench 24,663—

Reasoning Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.3 (#32), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
NYT Connections (extended)85.4%16.5%
Thematic Generalization63.8%41.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts14511350
ARC-AGI-265.1%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark75%—
ARC-AGI-189.5%—
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles24%—
DTBench90.1%—
LMCA38.7%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index151.98—
ForecastBench61.4—

Math Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 48.2 (#65), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math14551366
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)44.9%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202592.2%—
ProofBench14%—

Knowledge Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 52.8 (#60), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert14391360
GPQA Diamond89.3%—
SimpleQA Verified30.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 33.3 (#98), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Vision1263—
Blueprint-Bench 20%—
LMArena Document1416—

Multilingual Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 54.5 (#40), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English14411325
LMArena Chinese14811373
LMArena French14761374
LMArena German14651356
LMArena Japanese14491311
LMArena Korean14171306
LMArena Russian14581337
LMArena Spanish14431357

Instruction Following Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 74.8 (#83), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following14201334

Long Context Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 45.5 (#34), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query14371355
CL-bench22.2%—
CL-bench Life11.9%—

Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) leads

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): 65.7 (#44), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text14511340
LMArena Creative Writing14381320
LMArena Multi-Turn14561342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1574—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.6 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) 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; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

Is Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.1 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Trinity Large Thinking share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has 46 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper