Noometry

Model comparison

Grok-2 (Dec 2024) vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Grok-2 (Dec 2024) xAI

33.7

Rank #239 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. Grok-2 (Dec 2024) scores higher in 1 category and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.3 to 20.8.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderxAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index33.739.4
Released2024-08-13—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked3416

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 33.3 (#258), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding12871347
WeirdML22.2%—
LiveBench Coding46.4%—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 16.9 (#299), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts12721322
SimpleBench22.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning54.8%—
DTBench65.2%—
LiveBench Data Analysis54.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.48—
LiveBench54.3%—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 20.8 (#284), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math12831305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202511.5%—
LiveBench Math54.9%—
MATH Level 563.5%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)0.7%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 29.8 (#233), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert12541308
GPQA Diamond53.8%—
Confabulations20.1%—

Multilingual Too close to call

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 43.1 (#188), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English12821275
LMArena Chinese12891304
LMArena French13181328
LMArena German12871282
LMArena Korean12371206
LMArena Russian12861268
LMArena Spanish12811336
LMArena Japanese1244—

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 66.9 (#202), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following12701299
LiveBench Instruction Following69.6%—

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 38.8 (#190), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query12761312

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 48.6 (#198), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text13051311
LMArena Creative Writing12841264
LMArena Multi-Turn12901309
Short-Story Creative Writing63.6%—
LiveBench Language45.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok-2 (Dec 2024) better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok-2 (Dec 2024) or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 33.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok-2 (Dec 2024) and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok-2 (Dec 2024) has 34 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper