Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 34.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3.5 Sonnet scores higher in 3 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 5 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.3 to 19.2.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 34.6 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2024-06-20 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 60 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 39.0 (#165), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1342 | 1347 |
| Aider Polyglot | 51.6% | — |
| GSO | 4.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 40% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 67.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 58.6% | — |
| CadEval | 48% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 81.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 74.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 32.3 (#67), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 24% | — |
| Cybench | 17.5% | — |
| BALROG | 32.6% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 45.2% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 23.1 (#183), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1305 | 1322 |
| SimpleBench | 41.4% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 0.9% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 56.7% | — |
| DTBench | 67.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 55% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.55 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | — |
| LiveBench | 59% | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 19.2 (#288), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1307 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 8.5% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 27.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 52.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 56.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 28.6 (#245), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1265 | 1308 |
| GPQA Diamond | 55.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 4.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 77.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 19.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 56.5% | — |
| MMLU | 87.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 26.5 (#120), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1125 | — |
| Video-MME | 60% | — |
| GeoBench | 62% | — |
| VPCT | 33% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 43.2 (#185), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1283 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1272 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1305 | 1328 |
| LMArena German | 1297 | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | 1200 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1306 | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1290 | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1234 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 68.8 (#182), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1297 | 1299 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 69.3% | — |
| IFEval | 85.5% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 39.9 (#167), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1311 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 52.9 (#164), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1298 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1292 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1326 | 1309 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 80.3% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1451 | — |
| WildBench | 79.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 53.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 3.5 Sonnet better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 34.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (39.0 vs 39.5); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has 60 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.