Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Olmo 7b Instruct
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 6 categories and Olmo 7b Instruct in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 73.5 to 25.8.
- Olmo 7b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 58.2 | 30.3 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 68 | 10 |
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 7b Instruct: 29.6 (#303)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1536 | 1016 |
| 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 7b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7b Instruct: 18.8 (#274)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 993 |
| 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 7b Instruct: 30.2 (#237)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1018 |
| 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 Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Olmo 7b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Olmo 7b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Olmo 7b Instruct: 24.0 (#291)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1489 | 977 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 947 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | — |
| LMArena German | 1502 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1510 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Olmo 7b Instruct: 49.0 (#301)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 978 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Olmo 7b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Olmo 7b Instruct: 25.8 (#303)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 7b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1503 | 1032 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1505 | 990 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1513 | 1007 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Olmo 7b Instruct?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Olmo 7b Instruct better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 29.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Olmo 7b Instruct share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 7b Instruct has 10.