Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 3 27B vs Olmo 3 32b Think

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 3 27B Google

30.8

Rank #284 Confirmed

Olmo 3 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.7

Rank #183 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 3 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 38.6 to 22.5.

Side by side

Gemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
ProviderGoogleAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index30.838.7
Released2025-03-11—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.08—
Output $ / M tokens$0.16—
Results tracked4314

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 22.5 (#334), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding13221319
Aider Polyglot4.9%—
SciCode21.2%—
LiveBench Coding39.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

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

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

Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 16.7 (#301), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts13401302
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 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 25.9 (#265), Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math13121316
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202522.5%—
LiveBench Math55.4%—
MATH Level 574%—

Knowledge Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 25.5 (#261), Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert13041273
GPQA Diamond47.7%—
Confabulations40.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

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

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1164—
GeoBench52%—

Multilingual Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 46.9 (#155), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English13341255
LMArena Chinese13461300
LMArena French13681291
LMArena German13621290
LMArena Russian13491254
LMArena Japanese1287—
LMArena Korean1308—
LMArena Spanish1349—

Instruction Following Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 70.6 (#160), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following13211275
LiveBench Instruction Following74.9%—

Long Context Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#293), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query13331296
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%—

Writing & Preference Gemma 3 27B leads

Gemma 3 27B: 52.5 (#168), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

BenchmarkGemma 3 27BOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text13581300
LMArena Creative Writing13461256
LMArena Multi-Turn13451290
Short-Story Creative Writing79.9%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1266—
LiveBench Language34.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 3 27B better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 22.5 in the Noometry coding category.

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

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper