Model comparison

DeepSeek LLM 67B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek LLM 67B DeepSeek

24.9

Rank #347 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.1 to 7.0.

Side by side

DeepSeek LLM 67B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct specifications
DeepSeek LLM 67BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderDeepSeekAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index24.939.4
Released2023-11-29—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1516

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding10961347

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts10701322
Chess Puzzles0%—
Epoch Capabilities Index110.5—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math11081305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.8%—
MATH Level 56.4%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
GPQA Diamond24.6%—
LMArena Expert—1308

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English10731275
LMArena Chinese11321304
LMArena French—1328
LMArena German—1282
LMArena Korean—1206
LMArena Russian—1268
LMArena Spanish—1336

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following10791299

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query10921312

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek LLM 67BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text11051311
LMArena Creative Writing10671264
LMArena Multi-Turn10821309

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek LLM 67B or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek LLM 67B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper