Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Trinity Large Thinking vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max leads Trinity Large Thinking on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 29.5 to 10.8, and Trinity Large Thinking costs 5.5x less per output token ($0.80 vs $4.425 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 22 benchmarks have a result for both.

Trinity Large ThinkingArcee AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.80
0
Qwen3.7 MaxQwen
Coding
54.1
Overall
61.7
Output $/M
$4.425
22
vs boards won of 22 shared

Trinity Large Thinking or Qwen3.7 Max: which to pick

Only Qwen3.7 Max has a coding score, 54.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Trinity Large Thinking has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Trinity Large Thinking for output tokens 5.5x cheaper ($0.80 vs $4.425 per million).

Shared results
22
Trinity Large Thinking only
30
Qwen3.7 Max only
37
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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 not benchmarked, Qwen3.7 Max 54.1 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 34.9 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: React: Trinity Large Thinking 1231 against Qwen3.7 Max 1514, 47.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Trinity Large Thinking $0.80 against Qwen3.7 Max $4.425 per million output tokens, 5.5x apart.
Context window
Trinity Large Thinking takes 262K tokens, Qwen3.7 Max 1M.

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 ThinkingBarsQwen3.7 MaxTies
Coding06
Intelligence01
Agentic work02
Reasoning02
Knowledge01
Web design08
General02
All shared boards022
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index06
Coding benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxLeader
LMArena WebDev12381515Qwen3.7 Max
AA Coding Index25.866.0Qwen3.7 Max
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured87.1%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured68.8%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured47.7%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured13.1%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured61.0%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
SciCode40.6%49.5%Qwen3.7 Max
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)22.7%50.8%Qwen3.7 Max
ALE-BenchNot measured1189.4Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
LMArena Text: coding1357Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1362Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena WebDev: React12311514Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena WebDev: HTML12401512Qwen3.7 Max
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxLeader
AA Intelligence Index10.829.5Qwen3.7 Max
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured154.0Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Agentic work benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxLeader
AA Agentic Index1.022.5Qwen3.7 Max
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1208Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1191Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1155Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1159Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1187Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1161Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1158Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1197Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured47.8%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured15.8%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured25.5%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured57.0%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
τ²-Bench Telecom90.1%94.7%Qwen3.7 Max
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured90.2%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)75.2%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)15.8%40.5%Qwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured90.9%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
SimpleBenchNot measured70.4%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured26.0%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured32.0%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
EBR-benchNot measured9.5%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1342Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: expert1359Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1356Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxLeader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured95.6%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured64.6%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured34.1%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
ProofBenchNot measured26.0%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
LMArena Text: math1365Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1350Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Knowledge benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxLeader
MMLU ProNot measured89.3%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.9%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)57.9%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)54.7%63.7%Qwen3.7 Max
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured75.3%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured38.8%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured55.8%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
LMArena Text: science1355Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1349Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1345Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1329Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
Web design benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxLeader
Design Arena: websites11371274Qwen3.7 Max
Design Arena: UI components10451270Qwen3.7 Max
Design Arena: game dev10791265Qwen3.7 Max
Design Arena: data viz10981275Qwen3.7 Max
Design Arena: 3D10821266Qwen3.7 Max
Design Arena: all code categories11171275Qwen3.7 Max
Design Arena: SVG10171217Qwen3.7 Max
Design Arena: ASCII art10411211Qwen3.7 Max
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for Trinity Large Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured79.4%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
IFBench56.3%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)38.0%79.0%Qwen3.7 Max
DTBenchNot measured92.3%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
LMCANot measured44.0%Only Qwen3.7 Max measured
Surface Evolver Bench15.6%Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text1340Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1326Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1308Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: English1356Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: non-English1325Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1371Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: German1356Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1312Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: Korean1306Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: French1366Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1327Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: Russian1338Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: Polish1312Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1320Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1318Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1317Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1296Not measuredOnly Trinity Large Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 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 Qwen3.7 Max
BenchmarkTrinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxLeader
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
Qwen3.7 Max$0.0037Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.015Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Max$0.087Fits in one request

Trinity Large Thinking costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Trinity Large Thinking$0.058Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Max$0.339Fits 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 Qwen3.7 Max
SpecificationArcee AI Trinity Large ThinkingQwen3.7 Max
MakerArcee AIQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 1, 2026May 21, 2026
Context window262K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.25$1.475
Output $/Mtok$0.80$4.425
Coding indexNot benchmarked54.1
Independent measurements behind it13
Cost per solved taskNot computable$4.69
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Trinity Large Thinking better than Qwen3.7 Max for coding?

Only Qwen3.7 Max has a coding score, 54.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Trinity Large Thinking has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Trinity Large Thinking for output tokens 5.5x cheaper ($0.80 vs $4.425 per million).

Which is cheaper, Trinity Large Thinking or Qwen3.7 Max?

Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max costs $1.475 and $4.425. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.7 Max only.

Which has the bigger context window, Trinity Large Thinking or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Trinity Large Thinking vs Qwen3.7 Max comparison based on?

22 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Trinity Large Thinking's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3.7 Max's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next