Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs OLMo 2 Furious 13B
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 6 categories and OLMo 2 Furious 13B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4 leads 43.9 to 18.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MMLU-Pro: 87.5% for Claude Opus 4 and 31% for OLMo 2 Furious 13B.
- OLMo 2 Furious 13B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 42.9 | 29.2 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2024-12-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 32K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | — |
| Results tracked | 56 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.8 (#55), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 28.1 (#309)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 10.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.5 (#39), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.4 (#104), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 14.8 (#312)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 16.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | — |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 20.6% |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 22.1% |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 40.2 (#80), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 21.3 (#270)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | 15.6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 13.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1391 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 43.9 (#82), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 18.0 (#278)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | 31% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | 31.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1384 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 30.9 (#101), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 49.0 (#133), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | — |
| LMArena French | 1370 | — |
| LMArena German | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1332 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1318 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1388 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.3 (#26), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 61.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 91.8% | 73% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 60.6% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 39.5 (#167), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.4 (#85), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 43.0 (#226)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | 85.2% | 68.9% |
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1386 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 11.2% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than OLMo 2 Furious 13B?
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4 or OLMo 2 Furious 13B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.8 versus 28.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and OLMo 2 Furious 13B share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and OLMo 2 Furious 13B has 12.