Model comparison
Codestral vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AI
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 37.7 to 27.3.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Codestral | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 30.6 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2024-05-29 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 256K | — |
| Max output | 8K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | — |
| Results tracked | 7 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Codestral: 27.3 (#321), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 11.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 41.8% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1291 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 137.78 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 73.8% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.9% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Codestral: 19.8 (#251), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 32.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1272 |
Math Not comparable
Codestral: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Codestral: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1295 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Codestral: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1242 |
| LMArena French | — | 1260 |
| LMArena German | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1289 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Codestral: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1247 |
Long Context Not comparable
Codestral: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Codestral: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Codestral | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Codestral better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Codestral or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 27.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Codestral and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codestral has 7 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.