Nova Pro 1.0 vs Trinity Large Thinking
Updated October 21, 2026. 35 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Nova Pro 1.0 has the edge where the context window is larger, 300K against 262K tokens, and where what matters is Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 35
- Nova Pro 1.0 only
- 7
- Trinity Large Thinking only
- 17
- Like-for-like categories
- 8 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking leads, 10.8 against 7.0.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Trinity Large Thinking has a AA Agentic Index result, 1.0.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
Trinity Large Thinking
Trinity Large Thinking leads, 1137 against 796.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Nova Pro 1.0
Nova Pro 1.0 takes 300K tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Trinity Large Thinking
Nova Pro 1.0 $0.0024, Trinity Large Thinking $0.0006 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Nova Pro 1.0 not benchmarked, Trinity Large Thinking not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 76.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: Nova Pro 1.0 14.0% against Trinity Large Thinking 90.1%, 76.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Nova Pro 1.0 $3.20 against Trinity Large Thinking $0.80 per million output tokens, 4.0x apart.
- Context window
- Nova Pro 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.
| Category | Nova Pro 1.0 | Bars | Trinity Large Thinking | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 3 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 5 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| Web design | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 0 | 18 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 35 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1238 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 25.8 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.3% | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 40.6% | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.1% | 22.7% | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1270 | 1357 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1271 | 1362 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1231 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1240 | Only 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
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 7.0 | 10.8 | Trinity 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
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 1.0 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 14.0% | 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
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 49.9% | 75.2% | Trinity Large Thinking |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.2% | 15.8% | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1246 | 1342 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1211 | 1359 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1259 | 1356 | Trinity 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
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 7.0 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 7.0% | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1252 | 1365 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1261 | 1350 | Trinity 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
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | Not measured | 57.9% | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 54.7% | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 69.1% | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| MMLU | 82.0% | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1255 | 1355 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1260 | 1349 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1281 | 1345 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1229 | 1329 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 796 | 1137 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1045 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1079 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1098 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1082 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1117 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Design Arena: SVG | Not measured | 1017 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| Design Arena: ASCII art | Not measured | 1041 | Only 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
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 38.1% | 56.3% | Trinity Large Thinking |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 21.0% | 38.0% | Trinity Large Thinking |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Not measured | 15.6% | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text | 1259 | 1340 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1235 | 1326 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1212 | 1308 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Vision | 980 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 1.0 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1276 | 1356 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1233 | 1325 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1244 | 1371 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: German | 1243 | 1356 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1200 | 1312 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1203 | 1306 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: French | 1271 | 1366 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1182 | 1327 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1240 | 1338 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1312 | Only Trinity Large Thinking measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1246 | 1320 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1255 | 1318 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1247 | 1317 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1210 | 1296 | Trinity Large Thinking |
| LMArena Vision: English | 987 | Not measured | Only Nova Pro 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
| Benchmark | Nova Pro 1.0 | Trinity Large Thinking | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Trinity Large Thinking costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Trinity Large Thinking costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Trinity Large Thinking 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.
| Specification | Amazon Nova Pro 1.0 | Arcee AI Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Amazon | Arcee AI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | December 5, 2024 | April 1, 2026 |
| Context window | 300K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.80 | $0.25 |
| Output $/Mtok | $3.20 | $0.80 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Nova Pro 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 Pro 1.0 has the edge where the context window is larger, 300K against 262K tokens, and where what matters is Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Nova Pro 1.0 or Trinity Large Thinking?
Nova Pro 1.0 costs $0.80 per million input tokens and $3.20 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 Pro 1.0 or Trinity Large Thinking?
Nova Pro 1.0, with 300K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Nova Pro 1.0 vs Trinity Large Thinking comparison based on?
35 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Nova Pro 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.