Model comparison
Granite 4.1 8b vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.1 8b scores higher in 2 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 6 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 39.5 to 30.1.
Side by side
| Granite 4.1 8b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 37.4 | 39.4 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Granite 4.1 8b: 30.1 (#297), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1312 | 1347 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1192 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 25.7 (#143), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1293 | 1322 |
Math Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 36.4 (#166), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1312 | 1305 |
Knowledge Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 36.1 (#174), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1309 | 1308 |
Multilingual Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 41.7 (#204), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1261 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1337 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1240 | 1268 |
| LMArena French | — | 1328 |
| LMArena German | — | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1206 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1336 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Granite 4.1 8b: 66.9 (#203), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1269 | 1299 |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Granite 4.1 8b: 38.7 (#193), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1275 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Granite 4.1 8b: 48.1 (#204), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1290 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1251 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1268 | 1309 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.1 8b better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 37.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 4.1 8b or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.1 8b and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.1 8b has 13 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.