Model comparison
Mercury vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Arcee AISummary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury scores higher in 2 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 53.8 to 46.2.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 38.6 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury leads
Mercury: 38.7 (#170), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | 1350 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1366 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1360 |
Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1373 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |
Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1334 |
Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Mercury scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Trinity Large Thinking share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.