# Sage-A1.5 vs Trinity-Large-Thinking

> Side-by-side benchmark comparison for Sage-A1.5 and Trinity-Large-Thinking across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, multilingual, and math tasks.

- Canonical page: https://benchlm.ai/compare/sage-a1-5-vs-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: October 20, 2026

- Shared sourced benchmarks: 1
- HTML indexing: indexable
- Ranking lane: BenchAlign v5.8

## Quick Verdict

Evidence is too thin for a benchmark verdict: Sage-A1.5 and Trinity-Large-Thinking share only 1 sourced benchmark row.

## Summary

- Only 1 shared sourced benchmark row is available. That is not enough for a broad capability verdict, so this mirror does not name an overall winner.
- Sage-A1.5 has the lower published output-token price.
- Trinity-Large-Thinking has the larger published context window at 512K.

## Model Snapshot

| Property | Sage-A1.5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking |
|----------|----------|----------|
| Creator | InternScience | Arcee AI |
| Type | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Reasoning | Reasoning | Reasoning |
| Context | 262K | 512K |
| Independent public score (not head-to-head) | 62.95 | 34.44 |
| Benchmarks Covered | 12 | 7 |
| Pricing (input/output) | $0.00 / $0.00 | $0.25 / $0.90 |

## Category Breakdown

### Agentic

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: 57.7 (Estimated · #36/132)
- Trinity-Large-Thinking public-lane score: 14 (Estimated · #121/132)

| Benchmark | Sage-A1.5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| GAIA | 95.1% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| BrowseComp | 81.7% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| MLE-Bench Lite | 65.2% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| HLE w/ tools | 55.1% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| VITA-Bench | 45.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| PinchBench | 90.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| τ²-bench Airline | Coming soon | 88.0% | Coming soon |
| Gert Labs | Coming soon | 32.55% | Coming soon |

### Coding

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: 54 (Estimated · #34/153)
- Trinity-Large-Thinking public-lane score: 17.8 (Supported · #127/153)

| Benchmark | Sage-A1.5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| SciCode | 44.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SWE-bench Pro | 61.2% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SWE Multilingual | 72.7% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SWE-bench Verified* | Coming soon | 63.2% | Coming soon |

### Reasoning

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: 80.6 (Unranked · 2 rankable rows)
- Trinity-Large-Thinking public-lane score: 51.1 (Unranked · 2 rankable rows)

| Benchmark | Sage-A1.5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| CritPt | 20.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |

### Knowledge

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: Coming soon
- Trinity-Large-Thinking public-lane score: 34.2 (Estimated · #140/187)

| Benchmark | Sage-A1.5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| FrontierScience Research | 48.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| GPQA-D | Coming soon | 76.3% | Coming soon |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee) | Coming soon | 83.4% | Coming soon |

### Instruction Following

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: 91.9 (#22/152)
- Trinity-Large-Thinking public-lane score: 28.9 (#136/152)

| Benchmark | Sage-A1.5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| IFBench | 81.6% | 52.3% | Sage-A1.5 |

### Mathematics

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: Coming soon
- Trinity-Large-Thinking public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | Sage-A1.5 | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| AIME25 (Arcee) | Coming soon | 96.3% | Coming soon |

## FAQ

### Is there enough evidence to pick between Sage-A1.5 and Trinity-Large-Thinking?

Not yet. The models share only 1 sourced benchmark row, so this mirror reports the available measurements and metadata without naming a broad winner.

### What can I compare safely on this page?

Published pricing, context windows, model type, and individual shared benchmark rows are directly comparable. Independent overall scores and non-overlapping benchmark coverage are labeled separately and should not be read as a controlled head-to-head result.

## Related Comparisons

- [Sage-A1.5 vs Sage-A1.5-F16-GGUF](/compare/sage-a1-5-vs-sage-a1-5-f16-gguf)
- [Trinity-Large-Thinking vs Sage-A1.5-F16-GGUF](/compare/sage-a1-5-f16-gguf-vs-trinity-large-thinking)
- [Sage-A1.5 vs Sage-A1.5-FP8](/compare/sage-a1-5-vs-sage-a1-5-fp8)
- [Trinity-Large-Thinking vs Sage-A1.5-FP8](/compare/sage-a1-5-fp8-vs-trinity-large-thinking)

## Explore More

- [Sage-A1.5 profile](/models/sage-a1-5)
- [Trinity-Large-Thinking profile](/models/trinity-large-thinking)
- [Compare Pricing](/llm-pricing)
- [Alternative Finder](/tools/alternative-finder)
- [LLM Selector](/tools/llm-selector)
- [Overall Rankings](/best/overall)