# Qwen3.5-9B vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Trinity Large Thinking's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen3-5-9b-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5-9B scores higher in 3 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 22.5 to 16.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 27.5% for Qwen3.5-9B and 36.1% for Trinity Large Thinking.
- Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $0.80 for Trinity Large Thinking.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 33.3 | 38.1 |
| Rank | 235 | 180 |
| Context | 262K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.10 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $0.15 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Qwen3.5-9B: 35.3 (#213)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 33.8 (#238)

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 27.5% | 36.1% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1381 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Qwen3.5-9B: 14.4 (#143)
- Trinity Large Thinking: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 9.2% | — |

## Reasoning

- Qwen3.5-9B: 22.5 (#178)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.3 (#298)

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 0.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1350 |
| DTBench | 71.2% | — |
| LMCA | 24.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.45 | — |

## Math

- Qwen3.5-9B: 33.5 (#174)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.9 (#149)

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 48.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1366 |

## Knowledge

- Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#77)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.3 (#107)

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 79% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1359 |

## Multilingual

- Qwen3.5-9B: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.4 (#155)

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | 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

- Qwen3.5-9B: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.7 (#157)

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1334 |

## Long Context

- Qwen3.5-9B: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.2 (#139)

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1355 |

## Writing & Preference

- Qwen3.5-9B: —
- Trinity Large Thinking: 54.0 (#152)

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1321 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen3.5-9B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Trinity Large Thinking's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-9B or Trinity Large Thinking?

Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Trinity Large Thinking lists at $0.25 and $0.80.

### Is Qwen3.5-9B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Qwen3.5-9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.3 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 262K tokens.

### How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5-9B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5-9B has 10 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.