Model comparison
Dolly 2.0-12b vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Databricks
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Dolly 2.0-12b scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 46.2 to 15.2.
Side by side
| Dolly 2.0-12b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Databricks | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 25.5 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2023-04-11 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 23.4 (#332), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 776 | 1291 |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 15.3 (#316), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 804 | 1272 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 89.67 | — |
| HellaSwag | 70.8% | — |
| PIQA | 75.4% | — |
| WinoGrande | 61.8% | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 27.3 (#251), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 871 | 1305 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Dolly 2.0-12b: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1295 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 39.6% | — |
| BoolQ | 56.3% | — |
| MMLU | 26.2% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 39.2% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 17.4 (#296), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 836 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 836 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | — | 1260 |
| LMArena German | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1289 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 38.7 (#304), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 814 | 1247 |
Long Context Not comparable
Dolly 2.0-12b: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Dolly 2.0-12b: 15.2 (#311), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Dolly 2.0-12b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 851 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 864 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 740 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Dolly 2.0-12b better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Dolly 2.0-12b or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 23.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Dolly 2.0-12b and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Dolly 2.0-12b has 17 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.