Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Olmo 3 32b Think

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.7

Rank #322 Confirmed

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

38.1

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 2 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 24.9 to 8.6.
  • Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
ProviderOpenAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index27.738.1
Released2025-04-14—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3814

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3 32b Think leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.8 (#325), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.0 (#169)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding13061318
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.3 (#98), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.6 (#344), Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts12861302
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62—

Math Olmo 3 32b Think leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 25.5 (#246), Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math12741315
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%—
Omni-MATH36.7%—
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge Olmo 3 32b Think leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#268), Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert12721272
GPQA Diamond48.9%—
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 28.6 (#108), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual Too close to call

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.8 (#200), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English12601255
LMArena Chinese12701300
LMArena German12881290
LMArena Russian12611255
LMArena French—1291
LMArena Japanese1199—

Instruction Following Too close to call

GPT-4.1 nano: 68.0 (#188), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following12671275
IFEval84.3%—

Long Context Olmo 3 32b Think leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#291), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query12831296
Fiction.LiveBench25%—

Writing & Preference Olmo 3 32b Think leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.7 (#238), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text12851300
LMArena Creative Writing12601256
LMArena Multi-Turn12771289
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 23.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper