Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 37.9 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 Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 25.2.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 58.2 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 68 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1536 | 1291 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1547 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1272 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.24 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1305 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1489 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1502 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1510 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1247 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1272 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1503 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1505 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1513 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.