Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.5

Rank #3 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

37.3

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 92.4 to 33.6.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderAnthropicAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index68.537.3
Released2026-09-22—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$4—
Output $ / M tokens$20—
Results tracked3515

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.4 (#1), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding15451292
FrontierCode54.4%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1820—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
MirrorCode77.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
APEX-Agents73.5%—
GDP.pdf30.6%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts15451272
ARC-AGI-292.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
EBR-Bench71.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
LMArena Math—1305

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert15641294
GPQA Diamond90.6%—
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English15131210
LMArena Chinese15721241
LMArena Russian15321193
LMArena French—1262
LMArena German—1260
LMArena Spanish—1288

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following15351246

Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query15401272

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text15181271
LMArena Creative Writing15381226
LMArena Multi-Turn15201252
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper