# Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Gemini 2.5 Flash and Trinity Large Thinking score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-flash-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 47.5 to 41.3.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 38.6 |
| Rank | 170 | 185 |
| Context | 1.05M | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $2.50 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1381 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1350 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| DTBench | 76.5% | — |
| LMCA | 27.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1366 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1360 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 16.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1357 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1334 |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1355 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Gemini 2.5 Flash and Trinity Large Thinking score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.3 vs 38.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash 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; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Trinity Large Thinking share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.