Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads 26.8 to 10.2.
- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 7 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1210 |
Reasoning Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1208 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1208 |
Knowledge Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 41.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 28.7% |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1160 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1192 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1187 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 78% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1186 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1194 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1218 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1199 |
| WildBench | — | 73.4% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1221 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct?
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better for coding?
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.2 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16.