LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Trinity Large Thinking vs GPT-5.6 Sol

Updated October 21, 2026. 51 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Coding
5.4
Overall
10.8
Output $/M
$0.80
1
GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI
Coding
76.7
Overall
47.0
Output $/M
$20.00
50
vs boards won of 51 shared

Decision reading

Pick GPT-5.6 Sol for coding: it scores 76.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 5.4 for Trinity Large Thinking.

Pick Trinity Large Thinking when output tokens cost 25.0x less, or when the benchmark that matters is τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Shared results
51
Trinity Large Thinking only
1
GPT-5.6 Sol only
85
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, GPT-5.6 Sol 76.7 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 41.5 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Surface Evolver Bench: Trinity Large Thinking 15.6% against GPT-5.6 Sol 93.1%, 77.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Trinity Large Thinking $0.80 against GPT-5.6 Sol $20.00 per million output tokens, 25.0x apart.
Context window
Trinity Large Thinking takes 262K tokens, GPT-5.6 Sol 1.05M.

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 ThinkingBarsGPT-5.6 SolTies
Coding08
Intelligence01
Agentic work11
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge05
Web design08
General020
All shared boards150
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index08
Coding benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGPT-5.6 SolLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured89.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena WebDev12381616GPT-5.6 Sol
AA Coding Index25.877.4GPT-5.6 Sol
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured82.6%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured96.2%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured37.9%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured80.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured52.9%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured1.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured91.2%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured85.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)Not measured20.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured54.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured76.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SciCode40.6%57.8%GPT-5.6 Sol
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.7%65.9%GPT-5.6 Sol
FrontierCodeNot measured47.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
FrontierSWENot measured32.2%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
GSO-BenchNot measured76.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
WeirdMLNot measured88.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
MirrorCodeNot measured20.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
ALE-BenchNot measured2176.9Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text: coding13571496GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: software and IT13621489GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena WebDev: React12311620GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena WebDev: HTML12401618GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1609Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGPT-5.6 SolLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.847.0GPT-5.6 Sol
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured162.8Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Agentic work benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGPT-5.6 SolLeader
AA Agentic Index1.050.2GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1245Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1261Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1249Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1246Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1260Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1267Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1286Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1240Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LiveBench researchNot measured54.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LiveBench browserNot measured88.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured48.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured30.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured53.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured31.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured48.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured72.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured71.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured20.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured41.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Time Horizon Index (Vals AI)Not measured23.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
CUA-bench (Vals AI)Not measured8.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
τ²-Bench Telecom90.1%85.1%Trinity Large Thinking
OSWorld 2.0Not measured27.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
BALROGNot measured60.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
PostTrainBenchNot measured36.2%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$9,619Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena SearchNot measured1261Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGPT-5.6 SolLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured95.2%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured91.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured33.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured88.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)75.2%94.1%GPT-5.6 Sol
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)15.8%49.5%GPT-5.6 Sol
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured93.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
ARC-AGINot measured97.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured92.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SimpleBenchNot measured64.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured59.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured58.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
EBR-benchNot measured44.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13421483GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: expert13591517GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13561477GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1305Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1305Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGPT-5.6 SolLeader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured100.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured89.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured82.9%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
ProofBenchNot measured83.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text: math13651473GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: mathematical work13501496GPT-5.6 Sol
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 GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGPT-5.6 SolLeader
MMLU ProNot measured89.1%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured87.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)57.9%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)54.7%64.4%GPT-5.6 Sol
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured74.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured67.3%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured44.0%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured69.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text: science13551455GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13491431GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: legal and government13451476GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: business and finance13291457GPT-5.6 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
Web design benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGPT-5.6 SolLeader
Design Arena: websites11371321GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: UI components10451338GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: game dev10791368GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: data viz10981323GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: 3D10821385GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: all code categories11171341GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: SVG10161316GPT-5.6 Sol
Design Arena: ASCII art10411302GPT-5.6 Sol
LiveBench designNot measured81.6%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index020
General benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGPT-5.6 SolLeader
LiveBench data analysisNot measured79.8%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured66.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured52.6%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured85.2%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured72.6%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
IFBench56.3%72.7%GPT-5.6 Sol
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)38.0%84.0%GPT-5.6 Sol
DTBenchNot measured95.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMCANot measured58.5%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Surface Evolver Bench15.6%93.1%GPT-5.6 Sol
Furniture assemblyNot measured56.7%Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text13401457GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: instruction following13261483GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: creative writing13081449GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena VisionNot measured1281Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Text: English13561457GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: non-English13251451GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Chinese13711525GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: German13561476GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Japanese13121472GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Korean13061442GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: French13661472GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Spanish13271443GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Russian13381471GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: Polish13121459GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: multi-turn13201461GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: longer queries13181481GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: writing and language13171462GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12961450GPT-5.6 Sol
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1280Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1313Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1290Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1246Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1283Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1483Only GPT-5.6 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 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 GPT-5.6 Sol
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingGPT-5.6 SolLeader
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
GPT-5.6 Sol$0.014Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.015Fits in one request
GPT-5.6 Sol$0.260Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.058Fits in one request
GPT-5.6 Sol$1.00Fits in one request

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 GPT-5.6 Sol
SpecificationArcee AI Trinity Large ThinkingOpenAI GPT-5.6 Sol
MakerArcee AIOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 1, 2026July 9, 2026
Context window262K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.25$4.00
Output $/Mtok$0.80$20.00
Coding index5.476.7
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.20
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Trinity Large Thinking better than GPT-5.6 Sol for coding?

Pick GPT-5.6 Sol for coding: it scores 76.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 5.4 for Trinity Large Thinking. Pick Trinity Large Thinking when output tokens cost 25.0x less, or when the benchmark that matters is τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Trinity Large Thinking or GPT-5.6 Sol?

Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol costs $4.00 and $20.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.6 Sol only.

Which has the bigger context window, Trinity Large Thinking or GPT-5.6 Sol?

GPT-5.6 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Trinity Large Thinking vs GPT-5.6 Sol comparison based on?

51 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-5.6 Sol's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next