Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 27B Google

30.5

Rank #277 Confirmed

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

37.3

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 3 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 37.1 to 22.1.

Side by side

Gemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderGoogleAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index30.537.3
Released2025-03-11—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.08—
Output $ / M tokens$0.16—
Results tracked4315

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 22.1 (#329), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding13221292
Aider Polyglot4.9%—
SciCode21.2%—
LiveBench Coding39.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 24.9 (#105), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

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

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 16.3 (#297), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts13401272
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 Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 24.4 (#261), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

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

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 25.4 (#256), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert13031294
GPQA Diamond47.7%—
Confabulations40.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemma 3 27B: 32.0 (#94), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Vision1165—
GeoBench52%—

Multilingual Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 47.0 (#150), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English13341210
LMArena Chinese13471241
LMArena French13681262
LMArena German13621260
LMArena Russian13491193
LMArena Spanish13481288
LMArena Japanese1287—
LMArena Korean1308—

Instruction Following Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 70.8 (#155), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following13211246
LiveBench Instruction Following74.9%—

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#288), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query13331272
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%—

Writing & Preference Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 52.7 (#161), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text13581271
LMArena Creative Writing13461226
LMArena Multi-Turn13441252
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 Think?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 22.1 in the Noometry coding category.

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

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper