Noometry

Model comparison

Claude 3 Opus vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Claude 3 Opus Anthropic

29.5

Rank #310 Confirmed

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

37.9

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3 Opus scores higher in 2 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 36.3 to 14.8.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderAnthropicAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index29.537.9
Released2024-02-29—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked4615

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 32.9 (#267), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding12641291
WeirdML19.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct45.5%—
LiveBench Coding38.6%—
BigCodeBench Complete57.4%—
HumanEval+77.4%—
MBPP+73.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 24.6 (#116), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
Cybench10%—
METR Time Horizons29.5%—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 14.6 (#324), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts12451272
SimpleBench23.5%—
Chess Puzzles5%—
EnigmaEval0.8%—
LiveBench Reasoning40.6%—
DTBench61.6%—
LiveBench Data Analysis57.9%—
LMCA17%—
Epoch Capabilities Index126.91—
ForecastBench58.4—
LiveBench49.2%—
WinoGrande88.5%—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 14.8 (#299), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math12731305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20254.7%—
LiveBench Math43.6%—
MATH Level 537.5%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 24.5 (#267), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert12231295
GPQA Diamond47.2%—
SimpleQA Verified12.6%—
Confabulations22.7%—
MMLU84.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 27.1 (#116), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Vision1023—

Multilingual Claude 3 Opus leads

Claude 3 Opus: 41.4 (#207), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English12581209
LMArena Chinese12481242
LMArena French12751260
LMArena German12581262
LMArena Russian12801193
LMArena Spanish12461289
LMArena Japanese1204—
LMArena Korean1187—

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 64.1 (#228), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following12481247
LiveBench Instruction Following63.9%—

Long Context Too close to call

Claude 3 Opus: 38.2 (#202), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query12591272

Writing & Preference Too close to call

Claude 3 Opus: 47.2 (#213), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text12621272
LMArena Creative Writing12351226
LMArena Multi-Turn12751252
LiveBench Language50.4%—

Frequently asked questions

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.

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

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Opus has 46 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper