Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 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 scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4 leads 61.2 to 50.2.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 32K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | — |
| Results tracked | 56 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1347 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1322 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1308 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1328 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1299 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1312 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1309 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.