Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 27B Google

30.8

Rank #284 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

39.4

Rank #168 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 3 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 39.5 to 22.5.

Side by side

Gemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderGoogleAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index30.839.4
Released2025-03-11—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.08—
Output $ / M tokens$0.16—
Results tracked4316

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Gemma 3 27B: 22.5 (#334), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding13221347
Aider Polyglot4.9%—
SciCode21.2%—
LiveBench Coding39.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 25.1 (#110), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard29.5%—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Gemma 3 27B: 16.7 (#301), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts13401322
Kagi LLM Benchmark40.4%—
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles0%—
LiveBench Reasoning43.8%—
DTBench52.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis51.5%—
LMCA12.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.04—
LiveBench50%—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Gemma 3 27B: 25.9 (#265), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math13121305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202522.5%—
LiveBench Math55.4%—
MATH Level 574%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Gemma 3 27B: 25.5 (#261), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert13041308
GPQA Diamond47.7%—
Confabulations40.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 32.6 (#100), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Vision1164—
GeoBench52%—

Multilingual Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 46.9 (#155), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English13341275
LMArena Chinese13461304
LMArena French13681328
LMArena German13621282
LMArena Korean13081206
LMArena Russian13491268
LMArena Spanish13491336
LMArena Japanese1287—

Instruction Following Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 70.6 (#160), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following13211299
LiveBench Instruction Following74.9%—

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#293), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query13331312
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%—

Writing & Preference Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 52.5 (#168), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text13581311
LMArena Creative Writing13461264
LMArena Multi-Turn13451309
Short-Story Creative Writing79.9%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1266—
LiveBench Language34.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3 27B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 3 27B or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 22.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 27B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper