Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4 Turbo vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4 Turbo OpenAI

30.3

Rank #281 Confirmed

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

38.8

Rank #168 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4 Turbo scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 33.6 to 8.6.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderOpenAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index30.338.8
Released2023-11-06—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K—
Max output4K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$30—
Results tracked3616

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 33.4 (#247), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 38.9 (#154)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding12681346
WeirdML18%—
BigCodeBench Instruct48.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete58.2%—
HumanEval+86.6%—
MBPP+73.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
METR Time Horizons36.7%—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 14.9 (#311), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts12511322
SimpleBench25.1%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
DTBench61.6%—
LMCA9.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index127.25—
ForecastBench59.4—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 8.6 (#316), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math12721305
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)0.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20256.7%—
MATH Level 546.7%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 24.3 (#263), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert12231307
GPQA Diamond46.6%—
Confabulations28.4%—
MMLU81.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: 30.0 (#104), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Vision1090—

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 40.7 (#211), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English12451275
LMArena Chinese12421304
LMArena French12751328
LMArena German12591283
LMArena Korean11871206
LMArena Russian12591268
LMArena Spanish12601337
LMArena Japanese1194—

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 66.0 (#211), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following12501298

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 38.0 (#200), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query12541312

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 47.9 (#201), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text12721311
LMArena Creative Writing12691264
LMArena Multi-Turn12671309

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4 Turbo better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4 Turbo or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4 Turbo and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4 Turbo has 36 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper