Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Google
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 50.2 to 24.0.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1347 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1322 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1305 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1308 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1268 |
| LMArena French | — | 1328 |
| LMArena German | — | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1206 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1336 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1299 |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1309 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.