Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus vs Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads 61.0 to 42.1.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct specifications
DeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusOlmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
ProviderDeepSeekAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index43.132.7
Released2025-09-22—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window164K—
Max output147K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.27—
Output $ / M tokens$1—
Results tracked1616

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

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 42.0 (#113), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusOlmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding14261210
SciCode40.6%—
ALE-Bench745.17—

Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 26.4 (#133), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusOlmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14261208
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.4%—
CritPt1.7%—
DTBench81.3%—
LMCA28.6%—

Math DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 38.5 (#137), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusOlmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Math14021208
Omni-MATH—16.1%

Knowledge Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —, Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusOlmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
MMLU-Pro—41.4%
GPQA (HELM)—28.7%

Multilingual DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 52.1 (#92), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusOlmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English14071160
LMArena Russian14361187
LMArena Chinese—1192

Instruction Following DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 74.0 (#106), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusOlmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14041186
IFEval—78%

Long Context DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 43.4 (#97), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusOlmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14211194

Writing & Preference DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 61.0 (#92), Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusOlmo 2 0325 32b Instruct
LMArena Text14191218
LMArena Creative Writing14031199
LMArena Multi-Turn14111221
WildBench—73.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus better than Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus or Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better for coding?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.0 versus 35.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has 16 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper