# Qwen-14B vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen-14b-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 10

## Summary

- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen-14B scores higher in 1 category and Trinity Large Thinking in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 54.0 to 27.8.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen-14B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 30.8 | 38.1 |
| Rank | 273 | 180 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Qwen-14B: 30.6 (#283)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 33.8 (#238)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1072 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |

## Reasoning

- Qwen-14B: 18.7 (#255)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.3 (#298)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1027 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 55% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 112.8 | — |
| LAMBADA | 71.1% | — |
| PIQA | 79.9% | — |

## Math

- Qwen-14B: 28.7 (#224)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.9 (#149)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1068 | 1366 |
| GSM8K | 61.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- Qwen-14B: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.3 (#107)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1359 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 84.4% | — |
| BoolQ | 86.2% | — |
| MMLU | 66.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Qwen-14B: 27.7 (#270)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.4 (#155)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1042 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1077 | 1372 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1312 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1338 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1356 |

## Instruction Following

- Qwen-14B: 52.6 (#284)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.7 (#157)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1334 |

## Long Context

- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#276)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.2 (#139)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1029 | 1355 |

## Writing & Preference

- Qwen-14B: 27.8 (#294)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 54.0 (#152)

| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1051 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1028 | 1321 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1022 | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen-14B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Qwen-14B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.8 versus 30.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Qwen-14B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen-14B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.