Noometry

Model comparison

gpt-oss-120b vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 36.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

gpt-oss-120b OpenAI

36.3

Rank #217 Confirmed

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

39.4

Rank #168 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. gpt-oss-120b scores higher in 4 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where gpt-oss-120b leads 52.5 to 36.3.

Side by side

gpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderOpenAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index36.339.4
Released2025-08-05—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output41K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.037—
Output $ / M tokens$0.17—
Results tracked4816

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

gpt-oss-120b: 33.5 (#256), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

Benchmarkgpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding13801347
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)26%—
Aider Polyglot41.8%—
SciCode36%—
WeirdML48.2%—
ALE-Bench575.62—
AlgoTune1.41—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

gpt-oss-120b: 12.2 (#153), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

Benchmarkgpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Terminal-Bench18.7%—
APEX-Agents4.4%—
METR Time Horizons56.6%—
Vending-Bench 2-21.53—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

gpt-oss-120b: 20.0 (#245), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

Benchmarkgpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts13641322
SimpleBench22.1%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark58.6%—
CritPt1.1%—
Chess Puzzles20%—
Mystery Game Puzzles2%—
DTBench76.3%—
LMCA22.1%—
Surface Evolver Bench25%—
Epoch Capabilities Index139.93—

Math gpt-oss-120b leads

gpt-oss-120b: 52.5 (#50), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

Benchmarkgpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math13891305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202588.9%—
Omni-MATH68.8%—

Knowledge gpt-oss-120b leads

gpt-oss-120b: 42.4 (#96), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

Benchmarkgpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert13561308
GPQA Diamond75.8%—
MMLU-Pro79.5%—
Confabulations15.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate14.2%—
GPQA (HELM)68.4%—

Multilingual gpt-oss-120b leads

gpt-oss-120b: 48.0 (#147), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

Benchmarkgpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English13511275
LMArena Chinese13851304
LMArena French13691328
LMArena German13531282
LMArena Korean12821206
LMArena Russian13431268
LMArena Spanish13891336
LMArena Japanese1331—

Instruction Following Too close to call

gpt-oss-120b: 69.3 (#173), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

Benchmarkgpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following13181299
IFEval83.6%—

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

gpt-oss-120b: 31.4 (#278), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

Benchmarkgpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query13191312
Fiction.LiveBench44.4%—

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

gpt-oss-120b: 46.5 (#217), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

Benchmarkgpt-oss-120bOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text13651311
LMArena Creative Writing12751264
LMArena Multi-Turn13401309
Short-Story Creative Writing77.1%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing961—
WildBench84.5%—

Frequently asked questions

Is gpt-oss-120b better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 36.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is gpt-oss-120b or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do gpt-oss-120b and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. gpt-oss-120b has 48 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper