Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct vs Trinity Large Thinking

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

32.7

Rank #254 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher in 2 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 40.9 to 19.5.

Side by side

Olmo 2 0325 32b InstructTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Arcee AI
Noometry Index32.738.6
Released—2026-04-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—80K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.25
Output $ / M tokens—$0.80
Results tracked1624

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding12101381
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%

Reasoning Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts12081350
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math12081366
Omni-MATH16.1%—

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructTrinity Large Thinking
MMLU-Pro41.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%
GPQA (HELM)28.7%—
LMArena Expert—1360

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English11601325
LMArena Chinese11921373
LMArena Russian11871337
LMArena French—1374
LMArena German—1356
LMArena Japanese—1311
LMArena Korean—1306
LMArena Spanish—1357

Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following11861334
IFEval78%—

Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query11941355

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text12181340
LMArena Creative Writing11991320
LMArena Multi-Turn12211342
WildBench73.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.2 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Trinity Large Thinking share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper