# QwQ-32B vs Trinity Large Thinking

> QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwq-32b-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. QwQ-32B scores higher in 5 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 41.2.

## Snapshot

| | QwQ-32B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 39.4 | 38.1 |
| Rank | 153 | 180 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 33.8 (#238)

| Benchmark | QwQ-32B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1333 | 1381 |
| Aider Polyglot | 20.9% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 44.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 72.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.3 (#298)

| Benchmark | QwQ-32B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.5% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 137.6 | — |
| ForecastBench | 58.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 72% | — |

## Math

- QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.9 (#149)

| Benchmark | QwQ-32B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1359 | 1366 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 59.2% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 77.8% | — |

## Knowledge

- QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.3 (#107)

| Benchmark | QwQ-32B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1323 | 1359 |
| GPQA Diamond | 65.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |

## Multilingual

- QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.4 (#155)

| Benchmark | QwQ-32B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1306 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1378 | 1372 |
| LMArena French | 1337 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1313 | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1263 | 1312 |
| LMArena Korean | 1278 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1297 | 1338 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1353 | 1356 |

## Instruction Following

- QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.7 (#157)

| Benchmark | QwQ-32B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1297 | 1334 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.8% | — |

## Long Context

- QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.2 (#139)

| Benchmark | QwQ-32B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1308 | 1355 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 54.0 (#152)

| Benchmark | QwQ-32B | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1329 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1288 | 1321 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1314 | 1342 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 80.2% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1257 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 51.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is QwQ-32B better than Trinity Large Thinking?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is QwQ-32B or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.9 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do QwQ-32B and Trinity Large Thinking share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. QwQ-32B has 36 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.