Model comparison

Gemma 3 12B vs Olmo 3 32b Think

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 12B Google

32.1

Rank #262 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 12B scores higher in 3 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 36.5 to 22.3.

Side by side

Gemma 3 12B and Olmo 3 32b Think specifications
Gemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
ProviderGoogleAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index32.138.7
Released2025-03-12—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.05—
Output $ / M tokens$0.15—
Results tracked2414

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 12B: 31.7 (#280), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding12811319
SciCode17.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: 25.5 (#108), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard30.4%—

Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 12B: 15.7 (#313), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts13091302
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles0%—
DTBench48.8%—
LMCA4.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index123.5—

Math Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 12B: 22.3 (#279), Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math13071316
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202516.7%—

Knowledge Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 12B: 26.5 (#257), Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert12481273
GPQA Diamond39.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate4.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 3 12B: —, Olmo 3 32b Think: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
MindCube46.7%—

Multilingual Gemma 3 12B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 45.7 (#165), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English13181255
LMArena German13701290
LMArena Russian13351254
LMArena Chinese—1300
LMArena French—1291

Instruction Following Gemma 3 12B leads

Gemma 3 12B: 68.6 (#186), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following12991275

Long Context Too close to call

Gemma 3 12B: 40.0 (#162), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query13171296

Writing & Preference Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 12B: 47.5 (#209), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text13341300
LMArena Creative Writing13311256
LMArena Multi-Turn13341290
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1126—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3 12B better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 3 12B or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 12B and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 12B has 24 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper