Model comparison
GPT-5.6 Sol vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 39.4 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-5.6 Sol scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 85.6 to 36.3.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 65.0 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2026-07-09 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | — |
| Results tracked | 65 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 65.1 (#7), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1498 | 1347 |
| DeepSWE | 72.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 47.5% | — |
| CursorBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1618 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 32.2% | — |
| SciCode | 57.1% | — |
| GSO | 76.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 89.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 20% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,177 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.3 (#7), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 51.4% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 27.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 46.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 36.2% | — |
| BALROG | 60% | — |
| GBAEval | 52.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.7% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1257 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,619 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.8 (#8), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1484 | 1322 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 71.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 93.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 32.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 64% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 37.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 44.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 96% | — |
| LMCA | 59.2% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 93.1% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 161.66 | — |
Math GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.6 (#9), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1474 | 1305 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 89.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 82.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 83% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#18), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1516 | 1308 |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 69.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.4% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.6 (#9), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1281 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 33.6% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 56.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1483 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.3 (#32), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1527 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1477 | 1328 |
| LMArena German | 1476 | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | 1442 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1468 | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1441 | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1471 | — |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.7 (#16), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1482 | 1299 |
Long Context GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.4 (#42), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Sol leads
GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.3 (#12), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Sol | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1457 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1448 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | 1309 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1972 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1250 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.6 Sol better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is GPT-5.6 Sol or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 65.1 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.6 Sol and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.6 Sol has 65 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.