# Llama 2-7B vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-7b-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 53.8 to 28.0.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 38.6 |
| Rank | 317 | 185 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1002 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1009 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 39.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 99.06 | — |
| HellaSwag | 77.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 73.3% | — |
| PIQA | 78.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 69.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1042 | 1366 |
| GSM8K | 16.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1036 | 1360 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 45.9% | — |
| BoolQ | 77.9% | — |
| MMLU | 45.8% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 58.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- Llama 2-7B: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 973 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 970 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 978 | 1356 |
| LMArena Russian | 995 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1007 | 1357 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1006 | 1334 |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 999 | 1355 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1053 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1029 | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 2-7B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 2-7B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.