Model comparison
Gemma 2 9B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 25.7 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 9B 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 knowledge, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 35.0 to 9.7.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | |
| Noometry Index | 25.7 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 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 9B: 29.0 (#299), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1174 | 1292 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 15.3 (#306), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1172 | 1272 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.78 | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.3 (#312), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#300), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1294 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.8 (#233), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1241 |
| LMArena French | 1189 | 1262 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1260 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | 1288 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | — |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 57.8 (#264), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1246 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#228), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 32.3 (#276), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 9B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 25.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 9B or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 29.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.