Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 36.3.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 65 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1347 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1322 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 94.9% | — |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1305 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1308 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | 1328 |
| LMArena German | 1472 | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1299 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1309 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.