Noometry

Model comparison

Claude 3 Haiku vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Claude 3 Haiku Anthropic

25.7

Rank #333 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

37.3

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3 Haiku scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 33.6 to 9.2.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderAnthropicAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index25.737.3
Released2024-03-07—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked3715

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Haiku: 26.1 (#320), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

BenchmarkClaude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding11991292
WeirdML9.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct39.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete50.1%—
CadEval12%—
HumanEval+68.9%—
MBPP+68.8%—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Haiku: 15.7 (#303), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

BenchmarkClaude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts11741272
Kagi LLM Benchmark34.2%—
DTBench50.1%—
LMCA8.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index118.3—
ForecastBench53.2—
WinoGrande74.2%—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Haiku: 9.2 (#313), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

BenchmarkClaude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math11881305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.8%—
MATH Level 514.9%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Haiku: 17.3 (#280), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

BenchmarkClaude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert11481294
GPQA Diamond36.3%—
Confabulations34.2%—
MMLU73.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude 3 Haiku: 23.1 (#123), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Vision950—
ScienceQA72%—

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Haiku: 36.1 (#238), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English11781210
LMArena Chinese11551241
LMArena French11941262
LMArena German11741260
LMArena Russian12041193
LMArena Spanish11651288
LMArena Japanese1102—
LMArena Korean1108—

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Haiku: 61.5 (#242), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

BenchmarkClaude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following11741246

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Haiku: 36.1 (#232), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query11911272

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Haiku: 29.8 (#286), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

BenchmarkClaude 3 HaikuOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text11951271
LMArena Creative Writing11571226
LMArena Multi-Turn11901252
EQ-Bench Creative Writing717—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude 3 Haiku better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude 3 Haiku or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 26.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude 3 Haiku and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Haiku has 37 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper