Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Google
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 4 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 25.2 to 15.2.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | |
| Noometry Index | 35.1 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 54 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1350 | 1291 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 25.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1272 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | — |
| DTBench | 63.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | — |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1352 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1339 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1391 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1353 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1294 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1247 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | — |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1344 | 1272 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1252 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 35.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 28.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.