Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 writing & preference, where Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 70.2 to 46.2.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $3 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Results tracked | 57 | 15 |
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 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1291 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 75.2% | — |
| DeepSWE | 29.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1522 | — |
| SciCode | 46.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 66.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,327 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 39.1 (#28), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| 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 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1484 | 1272 |
| 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% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 16% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 46.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.24 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 52.9 (#49), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1462 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 85.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 45% | — |
| 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 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1500 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 87.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 35.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 38.0 (#68), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1283 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 6.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1482 | — |
Multilingual Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 54.4 (#41), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1491 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1465 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1428 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1440 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1464 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.4 (#25), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1475 | 1247 |
Long Context Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 45.3 (#44), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 70.2 (#22), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1810 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1207 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.