Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen Plus vs Trinity Large Thinking

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Qwen Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

37.1

Rank #210 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen Plus scores higher in 2 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Trinity Large Thinking leads 37.6 to 23.3.
  • Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
  • Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen PlusTrinity Large Thinking
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Arcee AI
Noometry Index37.138.6
Released2024-01-252026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output33K80K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$1.20$0.80
Results tracked2024

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen Plus leads

Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

BenchmarkQwen PlusTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding13281381
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%

Reasoning Qwen Plus leads

Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

BenchmarkQwen PlusTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts13171350
Kagi LLM Benchmark63.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
DTBench81.1%—
LMCA24%—
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

BenchmarkQwen PlusTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math13261366
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202517.8%—
MATH Level 565.3%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1.7%—

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

BenchmarkQwen PlusTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert13281360
GPQA Diamond48.1%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

BenchmarkQwen PlusTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English13101325
LMArena Chinese13471373
LMArena Japanese12511311
LMArena Russian13231337
LMArena French—1374
LMArena German—1356
LMArena Korean—1306
LMArena Spanish—1357

Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

BenchmarkQwen PlusTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following13031334

Long Context Too close to call

Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

BenchmarkQwen PlusTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query13241355

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

BenchmarkQwen PlusTrinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text13261340
LMArena Creative Writing12931320
LMArena Multi-Turn13361342

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen Plus better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Trinity Large Thinking is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen Plus 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; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

Is Qwen Plus or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Qwen Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen Plus and Trinity Large Thinking share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen Plus has 20 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper