Model comparison

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Trinity Large Thinking score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 38.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #181 Confirmed

Trinity Large Thinking Arcee AI

38.6

Rank #185 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher in 2 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 25.9 to 16.9.
  • Trinity Large Thinking has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Trinity Large Thinking specifications
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127Trinity Large Thinking
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Arcee AI
Noometry Index38.838.6
Released—2026-04-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—80K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.25
Output $ / M tokens—$0.80
Results tracked1424

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175), Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Coding13141381
LMArena WebDev—1238
SciCode—36.1%

Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141), Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Hard Prompts12991350
NYT Connections (extended)—16.5%
CritPt—0.9%
Thematic Generalization—41.6%
Surface Evolver Bench—15.6%

Math Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174), Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Math12981366

Knowledge Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183), Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Expert12891360
Vectara Hallucination Rate—6.9%

Multilingual Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201), Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Non-English12651325
LMArena Chinese13141373
LMArena German12311356
LMArena Japanese12071311
LMArena Russian12711337
LMArena French—1374
LMArena Korean—1306
LMArena Spanish—1357

Instruction Following Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199), Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Instruction Following12751334

Long Context Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184), Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Longer Query12921355

Writing & Preference Trinity Large Thinking leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192), Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text12991340
LMArena Creative Writing12621320
LMArena Multi-Turn12991342

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Trinity Large Thinking score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 38.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Trinity Large Thinking share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.

Related comparisons

Go deeper