Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 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 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.3 to 10.2.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 39.4 |
| 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 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1347 |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1322 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1308 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1304 |
| LMArena French | — | 1328 |
| LMArena German | — | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1336 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1299 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1309 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.