Model comparison
Qwen2-72B vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Arcee AISummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2-72B scores higher in 1 category and Trinity Large Thinking in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 40.9 to 21.2.
Side by side
| Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 30.0 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2024-06-07 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 26 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1196 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| WeirdML | 11.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 38.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 1.1% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 29.9% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1191 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.28 | — |
Math Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1235 | 1366 |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.1% | — |
Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1171 | 1360 |
| GPQA Diamond | 40.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| MMLU | 82.4% | — |
Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1176 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1240 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1170 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1151 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1111 | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | 1083 | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | 1169 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1169 | 1357 |
Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1181 | 1334 |
Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1192 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1203 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1181 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1196 | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2-72B better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen2-72B 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 Qwen2-72B and Trinity Large Thinking share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2-72B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.