Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Arcee AISummary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 leads 79.5 to 16.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 88.5% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 16.5% for Trinity Large Thinking.
- Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 38.1 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 35 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 71.4 (#1), Trinity Large Thinking: 33.8 (#238)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1820 | 1238 |
| SciCode | 66.9% | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1545 | 1381 |
| FrontierCode | 54.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.3 (#298)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | 16.5% |
| CritPt | 31.7% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1545 | 1350 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| DTBench | 98.9% | — |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.9 (#149)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1366 |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.3 (#107)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1564 | 1359 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.4 (#155)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1513 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1572 | 1372 |
| LMArena Russian | 1532 | 1338 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1312 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1356 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.7 (#157)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1535 | 1334 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.2 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1540 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3), Trinity Large Thinking: 54.0 (#152)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1518 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1538 | 1321 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1520 | 1342 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Trinity Large Thinking share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.