# Claude Sonnet 4 vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Claude Sonnet 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-sonnet-4-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4 scores higher in 7 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Sonnet 4 leads 44.0 to 33.8.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.
- Trinity Large Thinking accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 40.6 | 38.1 |
| Rank | 139 | 180 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $3 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $15 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Sonnet 4: 44.0 (#70)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 33.8 (#238)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 40% | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1414 | 1381 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 64.9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| GSO | 4.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 46.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 655.35 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Sonnet 4: 38.3 (#29)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 33.1% | — |
| Cybench | 35% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.6% | — |
| OSWorld | 43.9% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 62% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Sonnet 4: 23.0 (#169)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.3 (#298)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1372 | 1350 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 5.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 45.5% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 40% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 3.1% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| DTBench | 77.1% | — |
| LMCA | 29% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.69 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude Sonnet 4: 41.5 (#71)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.9 (#149)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1375 | 1366 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.1% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 60.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 84.4% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Sonnet 4: 41.6 (#99)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.3 (#107)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.3% | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1359 |
| GPQA Diamond | 79.2% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 7.8% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 84.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 13.2% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.6% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Sonnet 4: 25.6 (#116)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1191 | — |
| GeoBench | 37% | — |
| VPCT | 34% | — |
| MindCube | 44.8% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Sonnet 4: 46.9 (#151)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.4 (#155)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1333 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1351 | 1372 |
| LMArena French | 1364 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1331 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1301 | 1312 |
| LMArena Korean | 1293 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1355 | 1338 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1356 | 1356 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Sonnet 4: 71.8 (#141)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.7 (#157)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1334 |
| IFEval | 84% | — |

## Long Context

- Claude Sonnet 4: 33.6 (#254)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.2 (#139)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1398 | 1355 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 46.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Sonnet 4: 57.3 (#127)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 54.0 (#152)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1345 | 1321 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1376 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 81.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1483 | — |
| WildBench | 83.8% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Sonnet 4 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Claude Sonnet 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4 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 Sonnet 4 lists at $3 and $15.

### Is Claude Sonnet 4 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Claude Sonnet 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Trinity Large Thinking does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4 and Trinity Large Thinking share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4 has 58 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.