Model comparison
Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads 50.2 to 38.6.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 39.4 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2025-02-24 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 58 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 41.1 (#120), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1361 | 1292 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 61% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 52.8% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 64.9% | — |
| GSO | 3.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 74.5% | — |
| CadEval | 54% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 33.9 (#46), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 30.9% | — |
| Cybench | 20% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 43.6% | — |
| OSWorld | 35.8% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 60% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 18.7 (#252), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1333 | 1272 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 46.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 28.6% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 4.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 87.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 74% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.16 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.8 | — |
| LiveBench | 76.1% | — |
Math Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 35.7 (#137), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1336 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 33% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 79% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.1% | — |
Knowledge Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 39.7 (#117), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1321 | 1294 |
| GPQA Diamond | 79.7% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 78.4% | — |
| Confabulations | 14.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 60.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 33.1 (#90), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1169 | — |
| GeoBench | 68% | — |
| VPCT | 39% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 33.9% | — |
Multilingual Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 44.3 (#174), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1296 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1299 | 1241 |
| LMArena French | 1302 | 1262 |
| LMArena German | 1301 | 1260 |
| LMArena Russian | 1311 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1299 | 1288 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1268 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1249 | — |
Instruction Following Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 73.1 (#120), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1352 | 1246 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.3% | — |
| IFEval | 83.4% | — |
Long Context Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 50.2 (#10), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1373 | 1272 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads
Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 54.6 (#145), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.7 Sonnet | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1314 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1332 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | 1252 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 81.1% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1412 | — |
| WildBench | 81.4% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 59.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 3.7 Sonnet better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.1 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3.7 Sonnet has 58 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.