# Claude Opus 5.5 vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 16.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 88.5% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 16.5% for Trinity Large Thinking.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 38.6 |
| Rank | 3 | 185 |
| Context | 1M | 262K |
| Input $/M | $4 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $20 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | 1238 |
| SciCode | 66.9% | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1381 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | 16.5% |
| CritPt | 31.7% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1350 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| DTBench | 98.9% | — |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1366 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1360 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1374 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1334 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1355 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1342 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Trinity Large Thinking share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.