Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Olmo 3 32b Think
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.7 to 24.9.
- Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 38.1 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 68 | 14 |
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: 57.7 (#15), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.0 (#169)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1535 | 1318 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1546 | — |
| 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: 51.0 (#4), Olmo 3 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 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: 57.7 (#21), Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1302 |
| 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 | 155.36 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1517 | 1315 |
| 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: 61.8 (#23), Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1272 |
| 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: 37.0 (#67), Olmo 3 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1490 | 1255 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1300 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1291 |
| LMArena German | 1504 | 1290 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1255 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1512 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1275 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1296 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1300 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1506 | 1256 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1514 | 1289 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 38.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.