Model comparison

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct 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 writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 50.2 to 34.1.

Side by side

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct specifications
Granite 3.1 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderIBMAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index33.239.4
Released——
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1216

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding11491347

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts11381322

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math11591305

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert11311308

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English10681275
LMArena Chinese11391304
LMArena Russian10631268
LMArena French—1328
LMArena German—1282
LMArena Korean—1206
LMArena Spanish—1336

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following11161299

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query11551312

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text11271311
LMArena Creative Writing11161264
LMArena Multi-Turn10991309

Frequently asked questions

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper