# o1-pro vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-pro-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 40.9 to 29.7.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $150 / $600 for o1-pro.
- Trinity Large Thinking accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1-pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 31.5 | 38.6 |
| Rank | 271 | 185 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $150 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $600 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1-pro: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1381 |

## Reasoning

- o1-pro: 20.4 (#239)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 23.3% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| EnigmaEval | 6.1% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1350 |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |

## Math

- o1-pro: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1366 |

## Knowledge

- o1-pro: 29.7 (#234)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1360 |

## Multilingual

- o1-pro: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1373 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |

## Instruction Following

- o1-pro: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1334 |

## Long Context

- o1-pro: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1355 |

## Writing & Preference

- o1-pro: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is o1-pro better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, o1-pro 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; o1-pro lists at $150 and $600.

### Which has the bigger context window?

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

### How many benchmarks do o1-pro and Trinity Large Thinking share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1-pro has 3 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.