Model comparison
Qwen2.5-Max vs Trinity Large Thinking
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Arcee AISummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Max scores higher in 6 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 25.6 to 16.9.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5-Max | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 40.7 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2025-01-25 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1359 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| LiveBench Coding | 64.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1360 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 51.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 67.9% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 132.53 | — |
| LiveBench | 62.3% | — |
Math Too close to call
Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1369 | 1366 |
| LiveBench Math | 58.4% | — |
Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1337 | 1360 |
| Confabulations | 21.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1352 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1382 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1396 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1350 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1300 | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | 1304 | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | 1353 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1377 | 1357 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1335 | 1334 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 75.3% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1367 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1364 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 72.9% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 56.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5-Max better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen2.5-Max or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Max and Trinity Large Thinking share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Max has 27 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.