Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.6

Rank #3 Confirmed

Olmo 3 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.7

Rank #183 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 leads 91.8 to 36.5.
  • Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
ProviderAnthropicAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index68.638.7
Released2026-09-22—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$4—
Output $ / M tokens$20—
Results tracked4414

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: 71.9 (#3), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding15471319
FrontierCode54.6%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1813—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
MirrorCode77.4%—
ALE-Bench2,147—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
APEX-Agents73.5%—
GDP.pdf30.6%—
Vending-Bench 29,235—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts15351302
ARC-AGI-293.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
EBR-Bench71.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index167.33—

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math15061316
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős2.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert15471273
GPQA Diamond90.6%—
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1321—
Blueprint-Bench 251.2%—
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English15071255
LMArena Chinese15881300
LMArena French15141291
LMArena Russian15201254
LMArena German—1290
LMArena Spanish1507—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following15371275

Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query15321296

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text15151300
LMArena Creative Writing15331256
LMArena Multi-Turn14991290
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper