Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.9 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Arcee AISummary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 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 math, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 87.9 to 37.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 80.5% for Claude Sonnet 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 $2 / $10 for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
- Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 61.9 | 38.6 |
| Released | 2026-09-28 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 80K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 67.3 (#6), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1774 | 1238 |
| SciCode | 61% | 36.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1513 | 1381 |
| FrontierCode | 52.1% | — |
| CursorBench | 55.5% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 61.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,819 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 45.0 (#16), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 75.5% | — |
Reasoning Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 54.0 (#28), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80.5% | 16.5% |
| CritPt | 31.4% | 0.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1495 | 1350 |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 65% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 165.03 | — |
Math Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 87.9 (#6), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1510 | 1366 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 88.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 80.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 66.0 (#12), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1540 | 1360 |
| GPQA Diamond | 95.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 46.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 51.5 (#6), Trinity Large Thinking: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1289 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 75% | — |
Multilingual Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 55.3 (#30), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1522 | 1373 |
| LMArena Russian | 1451 | 1337 |
| LMArena French | — | 1374 |
| LMArena German | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1357 |
Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 78.3 (#11), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1495 | 1334 |
Long Context Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 45.9 (#28), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1498 | 1355 |
Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 66.0 (#40), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1471 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1465 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1474 | 1342 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 5.5 better than Trinity Large Thinking?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.9 to 38.6 on the Noometry Index. Trinity Large Thinking costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 lists at $2 and $10.
Is Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.3 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Trinity Large Thinking share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 5.5 has 32 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.