Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nova Lite 1.0 vs Trinity Large Thinking

Updated October 21, 2026. 34 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Nova Lite 1.0Amazon
Coding
No data
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$0.24
0
Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Coding
No data
Overall
10.8
Output $/M
$0.80
34
vs boards won of 34 shared

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Nova Lite 1.0 has the edge where output tokens cost 3.3x less, and where the context window is larger, 300K against 262K tokens.

Shared results
34
Nova Lite 1.0 only
7
Trinity Large Thinking only
18
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Nova Lite 1.0 not benchmarked, Trinity Large Thinking not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 72.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Nova Lite 1.0 17.5% against Trinity Large Thinking 90.1%, 72.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Nova Lite 1.0 $0.24 against Trinity Large Thinking $0.80 per million output tokens, 3.3x apart.
Context window
Nova Lite 1.0 takes 300K tokens, Trinity Large Thinking 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryNova Lite 1.0BarsTrinity Large ThinkingTies
Coding03
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge04
General018
All shared boards034
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Trinity Large ThinkingLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1238Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured25.8Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)16.7%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
SciCodeNot measured40.6%Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%22.7%Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: coding12391357Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: software and IT12411362Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1231Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1240Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Trinity Large ThinkingLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.710.8Trinity Large Thinking
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Trinity Large ThinkingLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.0Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
τ²-Bench Telecom17.5%90.1%Trinity Large Thinking
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Trinity Large ThinkingLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)43.3%75.2%Trinity Large Thinking
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.3%15.8%Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: hard prompts12201342Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: expert12011359Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12261356Trinity Large Thinking
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Trinity Large ThinkingLeader
AA Math Index7.0Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)7.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: math12271365Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: mathematical work12351350Trinity Large Thinking
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Trinity Large ThinkingLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured57.9%Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured54.7%Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)59.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
MMLU77.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: science12321355Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12131349Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: legal and government12381345Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: business and finance12191329Trinity Large Thinking
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Trinity Large ThinkingLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1137Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1045Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1079Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1098Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1082Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1117Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1017Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1041Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index018
General benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Trinity Large ThinkingLeader
IFBench34.1%56.3%Trinity Large Thinking
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)19.0%38.0%Trinity Large Thinking
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured15.6%Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text12291340Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: instruction following12051326Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: creative writing11971308Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Vision990Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: English12431356Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: non-English12081325Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: Chinese12251371Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: German12291356Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: Japanese11531312Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: Korean11531306Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: French12381366Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: Spanish12261327Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: Russian12161338Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1312Only Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn11991320Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: longer queries12341318Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: writing and language12111317Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: entertainment and media11761296Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Vision: English999Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Trinity Large ThinkingLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Nova Lite 1.0$0.0002Fits in one request
Trinity Large Thinking$0.0006Fits in one request

Nova Lite 1.0 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nova Lite 1.0$0.0037Fits in one request
Trinity Large Thinking$0.015Fits in one request

Nova Lite 1.0 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nova Lite 1.0$0.014Fits in one request
Trinity Large Thinking$0.058Fits in one request

Nova Lite 1.0 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Nova Lite 1.0 and Trinity Large Thinking
SpecificationAmazon Nova Lite 1.0Arcee AI Trinity Large Thinking
MakerAmazonArcee AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 5, 2024April 1, 2026
Context window300K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.06$0.25
Output $/Mtok$0.24$0.80
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nova Lite 1.0 better than Trinity Large Thinking for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Nova Lite 1.0 has the edge where output tokens cost 3.3x less, and where the context window is larger, 300K against 262K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Nova Lite 1.0 or Trinity Large Thinking?

Nova Lite 1.0 costs $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.24 per million output tokens; Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 and $0.80. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Nova Lite 1.0 or Trinity Large Thinking?

Nova Lite 1.0, with 300K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Nova Lite 1.0 vs Trinity Large Thinking comparison based on?

34 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Nova Lite 1.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Trinity Large Thinking's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next