Noometry

Model comparison

QwQ-32B vs Trinity Large Thinking

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. QwQ-32B scores higher in 5 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 41.3.

Side by side

QwQ-32BTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Arcee AI
Noometry Index39.838.6
Released2024-11-282026-04-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—80K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.25
Output $ / M tokens—$0.80
Results tracked3624

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

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkQwQ-32BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding13331381
Aider Polyglot20.9%—
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%
BigCodeBench Instruct44.6%—
LiveBench Coding72.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete54.4%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkQwQ-32BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts13251350
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles5%—
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
LiveBench Reasoning83.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis65%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index137.6—
ForecastBench58.3—
LiveBench72%—

Math Too close to call

QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkQwQ-32BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math13591366
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202559.2%—
LiveBench Math77.8%—

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkQwQ-32BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert13241360
GPQA Diamond65.3%—
Confabulations15.6%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkQwQ-32BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English13051325
LMArena Chinese13781373
LMArena French13361374
LMArena German13131356
LMArena Japanese12621311
LMArena Korean12791306
LMArena Russian12971337
LMArena Spanish13541357

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkQwQ-32BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following12971334
LiveBench Instruction Following81.8%—

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkQwQ-32BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query13081355
Fiction.LiveBench83.3%—

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkQwQ-32BTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text13291340
LMArena Creative Writing12881320
LMArena Multi-Turn13141342
Short-Story Creative Writing80.2%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1257—
LiveBench Language51.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is QwQ-32B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is QwQ-32B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do QwQ-32B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. QwQ-32B has 36 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper