Model comparison
Gemma 2 9B vs Olmo 3 32b Think
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Google
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 36.5 to 9.9.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 38.7 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | 1319 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | 1302 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.83 | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |
Math Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318), Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1316 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305), Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1273 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1255 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1300 |
| LMArena French | 1190 | 1291 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1290 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | — |
Instruction Following Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1275 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |
Long Context Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1296 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1300 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1256 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1290 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 9B better than Olmo 3 32b Think?
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 9B or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Olmo 3 32b Think share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.