Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs OLMo 2 Furious 13B
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 51.7 to 18.3.
- OLMo 2 Furious 13B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2024-12-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $3 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Results tracked | 57 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.3 (#67), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 28.6 (#313)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 75.2% | — |
| DeepSWE | 29.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1522 | — |
| SciCode | 46.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 66.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 10.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,327 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 39.1 (#28), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 53.4% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 43% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 9.3% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.9% | — |
| OSWorld | 72.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 23.6% | — |
| GBAEval | 48.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1221 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,204 | — |
Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.1 (#45), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 15.5 (#314)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 60.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 86.5% | — |
| CritPt | 3.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 13% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 76.3% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 16.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1484 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 16% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 20.6% |
| LMCA | 46.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.24 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 22.1% |
Math Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 52.9 (#49), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 23.1 (#273)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 85.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 45% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 15.6% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 13.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1462 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 32.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 8.3% | — |
Knowledge Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.7 (#65), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 18.3 (#283)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 35.5% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 31% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.6% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1500 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 38.0 (#68), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1283 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 6.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1482 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 54.4 (#41), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1491 | — |
| LMArena French | 1465 | — |
| LMArena German | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1464 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.4 (#25), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 60.9 (#248)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 60.6% |
| IFEval | — | 73% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1475 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 45.3 (#44), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 70.2 (#22), OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 42.9 (#230)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | OLMo 2 Furious 13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1810 | — |
| WildBench | — | 68.9% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 11.2% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 better than OLMo 2 Furious 13B?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or OLMo 2 Furious 13B better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 28.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and OLMo 2 Furious 13B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 57 scored results on Noometry and OLMo 2 Furious 13B has 12.