Noometry

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

DeepSeek V4 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.6 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek V4 Flash DeepSeek

53.6

Rank #35 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

37.9

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4 Flash 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 reasoning, where DeepSeek V4 Flash leads 53.7 to 25.2.

Side by side

DeepSeek V4 FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderDeepSeekAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index53.637.9
Released2026-04-24—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output393K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.60—
Results tracked4115

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

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 47.9 (#59), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding14571291
FrontierCode18.8%—
LMArena WebDev1582—
SciCode49.9%—
WeirdML63%—
ALE-Bench1,306—

Reasoning DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 53.7 (#30), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14441272
ARC-AGI-261.4%—
SimpleBench61.1%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark52.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—
ARC-AGI-189%—
CritPt16.6%—
Chess Puzzles33%—
Mystery Game Puzzles34%—
DTBench90.9%—
LMCA41.7%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.49—

Math DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 60.3 (#37), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math14271305
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)57.5%—
FrontierMath Tier 424.4%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions76.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
ProofBench56%—

Knowledge DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 55.4 (#48), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert14411295
GPQA Diamond91%—
SimpleQA Verified33.6%—

Multilingual DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 53.0 (#72), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14201209
LMArena Chinese14681242
LMArena French14391260
LMArena German14181262
LMArena Russian14281193
LMArena Spanish14361289
LMArena Japanese1406—
LMArena Korean1384—

Instruction Following DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 74.9 (#81), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14211247

Long Context DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 43.8 (#85), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14341272

Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 63.8 (#61), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text14321272
LMArena Creative Writing14031226
LMArena Multi-Turn14491252
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1559—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek V4 Flash better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

DeepSeek V4 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.6 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek V4 Flash or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

DeepSeek V4 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.9 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4 Flash and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4 Flash has 41 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper