Model comparison
Qwen1.5 4b Chat vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Arcee AISummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5 4b Chat scores higher in 1 category and Trinity Large Thinking in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 53.8 to 23.8.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 28.8 | 38.6 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 29.1 (#308), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 999 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5 4b Chat leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 18.5 (#279), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 976 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
Math Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.4 (#234), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1026 | 1366 |
Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 26.7 (#255), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 980 | 1360 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 24.1 (#290), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 979 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1024 | 1373 |
| LMArena German | 902 | 1356 |
| LMArena Russian | 952 | 1337 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |
Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.0 (#300), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 978 | 1334 |
Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#290), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 988 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.8 (#309), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 997 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 969 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 977 | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5 4b Chat better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5 4b Chat or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5 4b Chat and Trinity Large Thinking share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.