DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs Trinity Large Thinking
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Facts
DeepSeek-V4-Pro is the stronger all-rounder.Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper and better at facts.
Scores updated · 22 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software40DeepSeek-V4-Pro4 of 4 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own30DeepSeek-V4-Pro3 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30DeepSeek-V4-Pro3 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10DeepSeek-V4-Pro1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10DeepSeek-V4-Pro1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up12Trinity Large Thinking2 of 3 tests
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Trinity Large Thinking costs 20% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where DeepSeek-V4-Pro pulls ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+43.4points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+36.7points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+24.3points ahead
Where Trinity Large Thinking pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+8.2points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 22 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingDeepSeek-V4-Pro
- Terminal-Bench 2.1DeepSeek-V4-Pro by 43.46420.6+43.4
- Terminal-Bench HardDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 23.546.222.7+23.5
- LMArena · WebDevDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 225 rating points14641239+225 rating
- SciCodeDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 10.250.840.6+10.2
AgentsDeepSeek-V4-Pro
- GDPValDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 32.932.90+32.9
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 24.330.15.8+24.3
- Terminal-Bench 4.0DeepSeek-V4-Pro by 14.114.60.5+14.1
ReasoningDeepSeek-V4-Pro
- Humanity's Last ExamDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 21.737.515.8+21.7
- GPQA DiamondDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 13.688.875.2+13.6
- CritPtDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 1212.90.9+12
FactsTrinity Large Thinking
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 20.54322.5+20.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationTrinity Large Thinking by 8.25.914.1+8.2
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is betterTrinity Large Thinking by 1.78.66.9+1.7
Following instructionsDeepSeek-V4-Pro
- IFBenchDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 20.276.556.3+20.2
Other results7 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 33.659.425.8+33.6
- AA-OmniscienceDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 33.4-10.7-44.1+33.4
- AA IntelligenceDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 19.630.410.8+19.6
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)DeepSeek-V4-Pro by 6.196.290.1+6.1
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 36.5 rating points153.8117.3+36.5 rating
- vectara_answer_rateTrinity Large Thinking by 1.897.299+1.8
- vectara_factual_consistencyTrinity Large Thinking by 1.791.493.1+1.7
Questions people ask
Which is better, DeepSeek-V4-Pro or Trinity Large Thinking?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, long documents and following instructions. Trinity Large Thinking wins facts, and costs 20% less.
Which is better for coding?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro. It wins 4 of the 4 coding tests both models report; Trinity Large Thinking wins none.
Which is cheaper?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro costs $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Trinity Large Thinking costs $0.25 and $0.80. That makes Trinity Large Thinking about 20% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 22 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 15 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 7 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.