Model comparison

Sonar vs Trinity Large Thinking

Sonar and Trinity Large Thinking score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.5 vs 38.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Sonar Perplexity

38.5

Rank #187 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Sonar leads 21.1 to 16.9.
  • Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $1 for Sonar.
  • Trinity Large Thinking accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
  • Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Sonar and Trinity Large Thinking specifications
SonarTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderPerplexityArcee AI
Noometry Index38.538.6
Released2024-01-012026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output4K80K
Input $ / M tokens$1$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$1$0.80
Results tracked724

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

Category by category

Coding Sonar leads

Sonar: 35.7 (#221), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkSonarTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%
LiveBench Coding35.1%—
LMArena Coding—1381

Reasoning Sonar leads

Sonar: 21.1 (#227), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkSonarTrinity Large Thinking
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
LiveBench Reasoning46.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1350
LiveBench Data Analysis37.9%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%
LiveBench46.9%—

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Sonar: 33.7 (#200), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkSonarTrinity Large Thinking
LiveBench Math41.6%—
LMArena Math—1366

Knowledge Not comparable

Sonar: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkSonarTrinity Large Thinking
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%
LMArena Expert—1360

Multilingual Not comparable

Sonar: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkSonarTrinity 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 Too close to call

Sonar: 71.4 (#150), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkSonarTrinity Large Thinking
LiveBench Instruction Following76.2%—
LMArena Instruction Following—1334

Long Context Not comparable

Sonar: —, Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkSonarTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query—1355

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Sonar: 52.6 (#167), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkSonarTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text—1340
LMArena Creative Writing—1320
LMArena Multi-Turn—1342
LiveBench Language44.1%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Sonar better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Sonar and Trinity Large Thinking score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.5 vs 38.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, Sonar or Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Sonar lists at $1 and $1.

Is Sonar or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Sonar scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Trinity Large Thinking does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Sonar and Trinity Large Thinking share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Sonar has 7 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper