Noometry

Model comparison

Claude 3 Opus vs Olmo 3 32b Think

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Claude 3 Opus Anthropic

29.5

Rank #310 Confirmed

Olmo 3 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.7

Rank #183 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3 Opus scores higher in 1 category and Olmo 3 32b Think in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 36.5 to 14.8.
  • Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
ProviderAnthropicAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index29.538.7
Released2024-02-29—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked4614

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 32.9 (#267), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding12641319
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 32b Think: —

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

Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 14.6 (#324), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts12451302
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 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 14.8 (#299), Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math12731316
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20254.7%—
LiveBench Math43.6%—
MATH Level 537.5%—

Knowledge Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 24.5 (#267), Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert12231273
GPQA Diamond47.2%—
SimpleQA Verified12.6%—
Confabulations22.7%—
MMLU84.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

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

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1023—

Multilingual Too close to call

Claude 3 Opus: 41.4 (#207), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English12581255
LMArena Chinese12481300
LMArena French12751291
LMArena German12581290
LMArena Russian12801254
LMArena Japanese1204—
LMArena Korean1187—
LMArena Spanish1246—

Instruction Following Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 64.1 (#228), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following12481275
LiveBench Instruction Following63.9%—

Long Context Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 38.2 (#202), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query12591296

Writing & Preference Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Claude 3 Opus: 47.2 (#213), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text12621300
LMArena Creative Writing12351256
LMArena Multi-Turn12751290
LiveBench Language50.4%—

Frequently asked questions

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

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

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

Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.

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

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Opus has 46 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper