# Qwen1.5-72B vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen1-5-72b-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-72B scores higher in 1 category and Trinity Large Thinking in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 40.9 to 11.5.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen1.5-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 30.8 | 38.6 |
| Rank | 285 | 185 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1165 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.3% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 59.1% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1148 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |

## Math

- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1164 | 1366 |

## Knowledge

- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1136 | 1360 |
| GPQA Diamond | 28.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |

## Multilingual

- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1135 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1186 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1159 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1084 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1061 | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | 1050 | 1306 |
| LMArena Russian | 1104 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1110 | 1357 |

## Instruction Following

- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1141 | 1334 |

## Long Context

- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1157 | 1355 |

## Writing & Preference

- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1166 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1137 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1160 | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen1.5-72B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Qwen1.5-72B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Trinity Large Thinking scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-72B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.