Model comparison
GPT-4o mini vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4o mini scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 8 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.3 to 10.4.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 25.5 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2024-07-18 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 16K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Results tracked | 60 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
GPT-4o mini: 22.0 (#335), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1290 | 1347 |
| Aider Polyglot | 3.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 11.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 43.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.4% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 83.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 72.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-4o mini: 27.5 (#101), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 17.4% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
GPT-4o mini: 8.7 (#347), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1267 | 1322 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| SimpleBench | 10.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 32.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 12% | — |
| DTBench | 54.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 50% | — |
| LMCA | 10.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.56 | — |
| LiveBench | 41.3% | — |
| PIQA | 88.7% | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
GPT-4o mini: 10.4 (#314), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1267 | 1305 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 0.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 6.9% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 28% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 36.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 52.6% | — |
| GSM8K | 91.3% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
GPT-4o mini: 17.7 (#284), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1235 | 1308 |
| GPQA Diamond | 37.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 8.3% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 60.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 37.2% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 36.8% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.7% | — |
| MMLU | 81.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-4o mini: 25.9 (#122), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1066 | — |
| Video-MME | 64.8% | — |
| GeoBench | 64% | — |
| VPCT | 34% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GPT-4o mini: 42.0 (#199), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1266 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1265 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1297 | 1328 |
| LMArena German | 1272 | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | 1195 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1275 | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1276 | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1216 | — |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
GPT-4o mini: 61.9 (#239), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1258 | 1299 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 56.8% | — |
| IFEval | 78.2% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
GPT-4o mini: 39.1 (#186), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1289 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
GPT-4o mini: 39.5 (#248), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1286 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1268 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1285 | 1309 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 67.2% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 873 | — |
| WildBench | 79.1% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 28.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-4o mini better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is GPT-4o mini or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 22.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GPT-4o mini and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4o mini has 60 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.