LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Trinity Large Thinking vs GLM 4.6

Updated October 21, 2026. 46 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Trinity Large Thinking Replace GLM 4.6
Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Coding
5.4
Overall
10.8
Output $/M
$0.80
3
GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
52.2
Overall
18.5
Output $/M
$2.20
43
vs boards won of 46 shared

Decision reading

Pick GLM 4.6 for coding: it scores 52.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 5.4 for Trinity Large Thinking.

Pick Trinity Large Thinking when output tokens cost 2.8x less, or when the context window is larger, 262K against 205K tokens.

Model ATrinity Large ThinkingArcee AI5.4/1001 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 4.6Z.ai52.2/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved task
Shared results
46
Trinity Large Thinking only
6
GLM 4.6 only
20
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.

At a glance

Coding index
Trinity Large Thinking 5.4 from 1 benchmark, GLM 4.6 52.2 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
General, 16.6 points apart on average over 19 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Polish: Trinity Large Thinking 1312 against GLM 4.6 1447, 22.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Trinity Large Thinking $0.80 against GLM 4.6 $2.20 per million output tokens, 2.8x apart.
Context window
Trinity Large Thinking takes 262K tokens, GLM 4.6 205K.

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
CategoryTrinity Large ThinkingBarsGLM 4.6Ties
Coding06
Intelligence01
Agentic work10
Reasoning14
Math02
Knowledge05
Web design07
General118
All shared boards343
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index06
Coding benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGLM 4.6Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured68.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev12381341GLM 4.6
AA Coding Index25.845.8GLM 4.6
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured81.0%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured3.1%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured69.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
SciCode40.6%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.7%28.8%GLM 4.6
Terminal-BenchNot measured24.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured340.8Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: coding13571449GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: software and IT13621455GLM 4.6
LMArena WebDev: React1231Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML12401350GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGLM 4.6Leader
AA Intelligence Index10.818.5GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGLM 4.6Leader
AA Agentic Index1.0Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1029Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1096Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1090Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1180Only GLM 4.6 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom90.1%76.9%Trinity Large Thinking
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14
Reasoning benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGLM 4.6Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured74.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)75.2%78.0%GLM 4.6
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)15.8%14.5%Trinity Large Thinking
LMArena Text: hard prompts13421440GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: expert13591432GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13561445GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGLM 4.6Leader
AIMENot measured92.7%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured89.8%Only GLM 4.6 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured86.0Only GLM 4.6 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured86.0%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: math13651432GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: mathematical work13501447GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGLM 4.6Leader
MMLU ProNot measured82.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured79.6%Only GLM 4.6 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)57.9%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)54.7%56.8%GLM 4.6
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured66.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured92.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured82.9%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: science13551456GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13491455GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: legal and government13451448GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: business and finance13291416GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Web design benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGLM 4.6Leader
Design Arena: websites11371174GLM 4.6
Design Arena: UI components10451147GLM 4.6
Design Arena: game dev10791151GLM 4.6
Design Arena: data viz10981161GLM 4.6
Design Arena: 3D10821129GLM 4.6
Design Arena: all code categories11171166GLM 4.6
Design Arena: SVG10161108GLM 4.6
Design Arena: ASCII art1041Not measuredOnly 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 index118
General benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGLM 4.6Leader
IFBench56.3%43.4%Trinity Large Thinking
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)38.0%54.0%GLM 4.6
Surface Evolver Bench15.6%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text13401440GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: instruction following13261410GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: creative writing13081412GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: English13561449GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: non-English13251426GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Chinese13711499GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: German13561447GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Japanese13121393GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Korean13061400GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: French13661459GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Spanish13271436GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Russian13381418GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Polish13121447GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: multi-turn13201427GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: longer queries13181422GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: writing and language13171415GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12961409GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGLM 4.6Leader
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$0.0006Fits in one request
GLM 4.6$0.0016Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.015Fits in one request
GLM 4.6$0.034Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.058Fits in one request
GLM 4.6$0.132Exceeds the context window

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.

Specifications of Trinity Large Thinking and GLM 4.6
SpecificationArcee AI Trinity Large ThinkingZ.ai GLM 4.6
MakerArcee AIZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 1, 2026September 30, 2025
Context window262K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.55
Output $/Mtok$0.80$2.20
Coding index5.452.2
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Trinity Large Thinking better than GLM 4.6 for coding?

Pick GLM 4.6 for coding: it scores 52.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 5.4 for Trinity Large Thinking. Pick Trinity Large Thinking when output tokens cost 2.8x less, or when the context window is larger, 262K against 205K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Trinity Large Thinking or GLM 4.6?

Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; GLM 4.6 costs $0.55 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Trinity Large Thinking or GLM 4.6?

Trinity Large Thinking, with 262K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the Trinity Large Thinking vs GLM 4.6 comparison based on?

46 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GLM 4.6's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next