Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 24.9 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 Think leads 33.6 to 9.6.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 7 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1292 |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1272 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1294 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1241 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1246 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.