Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 8 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 64.7 to 16.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 91.1% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 16.5% for Trinity Large Thinking.
  • Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
ProviderAnthropicArcee AI
Noometry Index60.738.6
Released2026-05-282026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K80K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.80
Results tracked6524

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena WebDev15561238
SciCode53.5%36.1%
LMArena Coding14901381
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
GSO47.1%—
WeirdML82.9%—
ALE-Bench1,564—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
APEX-Agents48.9%—
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
GBAEval70.9%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%16.5%
CritPt20.9%0.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts14821350
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%15.6%
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench64.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
Chess Puzzles34%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
EBR-Bench28.6%—
Mystery Game Puzzles36%—
DTBench94.9%—
LMCA57.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21—
ForecastBench59.9—

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math14871366
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%—
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%—
ProofBench69%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert15021360
GPQA Diamond91%—
SimpleQA Verified53%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Trinity Large Thinking: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English14501325
LMArena Chinese15071373
LMArena French14811374
LMArena German14721356
LMArena Japanese14401311
LMArena Korean14321306
LMArena Russian14741337
LMArena Spanish14661357

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following14761334

Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query14831355

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text14611340
LMArena Creative Writing14541320
LMArena Multi-Turn14761342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—
EQ-Bench 41281—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 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; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Trinity Large Thinking share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper