Model comparison
Falcon-180B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Technology Innovation Institute
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Falcon-180B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 50.2 to 29.1.
Side by side
| Falcon-180B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Technology Innovation Institute | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 32.2 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2023-09-06 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Falcon-180B: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | Falcon-180B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | — | 1347 |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Falcon-180B: 19.1 (#269), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | Falcon-180B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1007 | 1322 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 112.13 | — |
| HellaSwag | 89% | — |
| LAMBADA | 79.8% | — |
| PIQA | 84.9% | — |
| WinoGrande | 87.1% | — |
Math Not comparable
Falcon-180B: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | Falcon-180B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
| GSM8K | 54.4% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Falcon-180B: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Falcon-180B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1308 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 67.8% | — |
| BoolQ | 89% | — |
| MMLU | 70.6% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 64.2% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Falcon-180B: 25.2 (#286), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | Falcon-180B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1000 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1304 |
| LMArena French | — | 1328 |
| LMArena German | — | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1336 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Falcon-180B: 53.4 (#286), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | Falcon-180B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1047 | 1299 |
Long Context Not comparable
Falcon-180B: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | Falcon-180B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Falcon-180B: 29.1 (#295), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | Falcon-180B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1054 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1089 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1013 | 1309 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Falcon-180B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Falcon-180B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Falcon-180B has 16 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.