Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 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 Opus 4.7 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 math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 36.5.
  • Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
ProviderAnthropicAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index58.338.7
Released2026-04-14—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$5—
Output $ / M tokens$25—
Results tracked6614

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding15181319
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts15061302
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA52.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math14991316
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
ProofBench54%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert15211273
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14801255
LMArena Chinese15311300
LMArena French15031291
LMArena German14951290
LMArena Russian14941254
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Spanish1495—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14981275

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query15051296

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text14901300
LMArena Creative Writing14861256
LMArena Multi-Turn15051290
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper