Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 46.2 to 25.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 37.9 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1291 |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1272 |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1305 |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | 1295 |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | 1242 |
| LMArena German | 944 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | 1193 |
| LMArena French | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1289 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1247 |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.