# o4-mini vs Trinity Large Thinking

> o4-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o4-mini's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o4-mini-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. o4-mini scores higher in 8 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where o4-mini leads 24.6 to 16.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Vectara Hallucination Rate: 18.6% for o4-mini and 6.9% for Trinity Large Thinking.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.10 / $4.40 for o4-mini.
- Trinity Large Thinking accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 41.6 | 38.1 |
| Rank | 119 | 180 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $1.10 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $4.40 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o4-mini: 41.6 (#110)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 33.8 (#238)

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1369 | 1381 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 45% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| GSO | 3.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 52.6% | — |
| CadEval | 62% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 826.17 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.72 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o4-mini: 32.3 (#57)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 53.2% | — |
| GDPval | 25.3% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |

## Reasoning

- o4-mini: 24.6 (#143)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.3 (#298)

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.6% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1351 | 1350 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 6.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 38.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 58.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 26% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 9.2% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 5% | — |
| DTBench | 77.6% | — |
| LMCA | 26.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.63 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.8 | — |

## Math

- o4-mini: 40.2 (#79)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.9 (#149)

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1366 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 81.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 72% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 97.8% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 24.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 6.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- o4-mini: 43.5 (#83)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.3 (#107)

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 18.6% | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1344 | 1359 |
| GPQA Diamond | 79.6% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 18.1% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 19.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 82% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 73.5% | — |

## Multimodal

- o4-mini: 39.5 (#46)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1194 | — |
| GeoBench | 64% | — |
| VPCT | 57.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- o4-mini: 47.2 (#149)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.4 (#155)

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1336 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1355 | 1372 |
| LMArena French | 1362 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1336 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1308 | 1312 |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1334 | 1338 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1346 | 1356 |

## Instruction Following

- o4-mini: 75.4 (#63)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.7 (#157)

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1321 | 1334 |
| IFEval | 92.8% | — |

## Long Context

- o4-mini: 45.5 (#31)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.2 (#139)

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1315 | 1355 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o4-mini: 54.2 (#148)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 54.0 (#152)

| Benchmark | o4-mini | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1353 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1294 | 1321 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 75% | — |
| WildBench | 85.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o4-mini better than Trinity Large Thinking?

o4-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.6 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 5.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o4-mini's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, o4-mini 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; o4-mini lists at $1.10 and $4.40.

### Is o4-mini or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

o4-mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.6 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 o4-mini and Trinity Large Thinking share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. o4-mini has 60 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.