Model comparison

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct IBM

30.2

Rank #284 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.0 2b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 46.4 to 29.8.

Side by side

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct and Olmo 3.1 32b Think specifications
Granite 3.0 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderIBMAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index30.237.3
Released——
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1315

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 27.8 (#311), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.0 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding10901292
BigCodeBench Instruct20.5%—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 19.6 (#234), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.0 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts10731272

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 29.7 (#215), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.0 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math11171305

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 28.4 (#238), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.0 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert10641294

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 27.1 (#273), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.0 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English10331210
LMArena Chinese10701241
LMArena Russian10451193
LMArena French—1262
LMArena German—1260
LMArena Spanish—1288

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 54.2 (#279), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.0 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following10561246

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 32.5 (#263), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.0 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query10711272

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 29.8 (#287), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.0 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text10801271
LMArena Creative Writing10461226
LMArena Multi-Turn10531252

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 3.0 2b Instruct better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 3.0 2b Instruct or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 27.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 3.0 2b Instruct and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.0 2b Instruct has 13 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper