Model comparison
Qwen3.5-9B vs Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Trinity Large Thinking's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Arcee AISummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5-9B scores higher in 3 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 23.1 to 16.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 27.5% for Qwen3.5-9B and 36.1% for Trinity Large Thinking.
- Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.80 for Trinity Large Thinking.
Side by side
| Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 33.8 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2026-02-23 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Max output | 66K | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 10 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5-9B leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 27.5% | 36.1% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1381 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 9.2% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 0.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1350 |
| DTBench | 71.2% | — |
| LMCA | 24.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.46 | — |
Math Trinity Large Thinking leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 48.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1366 |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 79% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1360 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3.5-9B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1373 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.5-9B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1334 |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3.5-9B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.5-9B: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.5-9B better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Trinity Large Thinking's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-9B or Trinity Large Thinking?
Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Trinity Large Thinking lists at $0.25 and $0.80.
Is Qwen3.5-9B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Qwen3.5-9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5-9B and Trinity Large Thinking share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5-9B has 10 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.