# Mercury 2.5 vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Trinity Large Thinking has enough public results to be ranked (#180); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mercury-2-5-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in math, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 34.9 to 22.4.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.80 for Trinity Large Thinking.
- Trinity Large Thinking accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 260K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 30.2 | 38.1 |
| Rank | — | 180 |
| Context | 260K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.04 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $0.15 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Mercury 2.5: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 33.8 (#238)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1381 |
| ALE-Bench | 301.65 | — |

## Reasoning

- Mercury 2.5: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.3 (#298)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1350 |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |

## Math

- Mercury 2.5: 22.4
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.9 (#149)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1366 |

## Knowledge

- Mercury 2.5: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.3 (#107)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1359 |

## Multilingual

- Mercury 2.5: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.4 (#155)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1372 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1312 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1338 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1356 |

## Instruction Following

- Mercury 2.5: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.7 (#157)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1334 |

## Long Context

- Mercury 2.5: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.2 (#139)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1355 |

## Writing & Preference

- Mercury 2.5: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 54.0 (#152)

| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1321 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is Mercury 2.5 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking has enough public results to be ranked (#180); Mercury 2.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or Trinity Large Thinking?

Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Trinity Large Thinking lists at $0.25 and $0.80.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Trinity Large Thinking does, with 262K tokens against 260K.

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

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury 2.5 has 2 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.