Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 29.4 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. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 1 category and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 36.3 to 10.7.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | — |
| Max output | 2K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Results tracked | 34 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1291 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1272 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1247 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1252 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.