Model comparison
DeepSeek LLM 67B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 35.7 to 7.0.
Side by side
| DeepSeek LLM 67B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2023-11-29 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1096 | 1291 |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1070 | 1272 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 110.5 | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1108 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 6.4% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 24.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1295 |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1073 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | — | 1260 |
| LMArena German | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1289 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1079 | 1247 |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1092 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1105 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1067 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1082 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek LLM 67B and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.