Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen Max vs Trinity Large Thinking

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen Max scores higher in 1 category and Trinity Large Thinking in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 37.6 to 22.3.
  • Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • Trinity Large Thinking accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 33K.
  • Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen MaxTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Arcee AI
Noometry Index34.738.6
Released2024-04-032026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window33K262K
Max output8K80K
Input $ / M tokens$1.60$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$6.40$0.80
Results tracked2324

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

Category by category

Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkQwen MaxTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding12881381
Aider Polyglot21.8%—
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%

Reasoning Qwen Max leads

Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkQwen MaxTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts12691350
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkQwen MaxTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math12751366
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202516.1%—
MATH Level 567.2%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkQwen MaxTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert12481360
GPQA Diamond56.1%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkQwen MaxTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English12631325
LMArena Chinese12541373
LMArena French13301374
LMArena German12541356
LMArena Japanese12051311
LMArena Korean11421306
LMArena Russian12741337
LMArena Spanish12901357

Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkQwen MaxTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following12621334

Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkQwen MaxTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query12881355
Fiction.LiveBench66.7%—

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkQwen MaxTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text12821340
LMArena Creative Writing12481320
LMArena Multi-Turn12771342

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen Max better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen Max 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; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is Qwen Max or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Trinity Large Thinking does, with 262K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen Max and Trinity Large Thinking share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen Max has 23 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper