Noometry

Model comparison

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Grok-2 (Dec 2024) xAI

33.7

Rank #239 Confirmed

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

37.9

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok-2 (Dec 2024) scores higher in 4 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 36.3 to 20.8.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderxAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index33.737.9
Released2024-08-13—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked3415

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 33.3 (#258), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding12871291
WeirdML22.2%—
LiveBench Coding46.4%—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 16.9 (#299), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts12721272
SimpleBench22.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning54.8%—
DTBench65.2%—
LiveBench Data Analysis54.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.48—
LiveBench54.3%—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 20.8 (#284), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Think
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 Think leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 29.8 (#233), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert12541295
GPQA Diamond53.8%—
Confabulations20.1%—

Multilingual Grok-2 (Dec 2024) leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 43.1 (#188), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English12821209
LMArena Chinese12891242
LMArena French13181260
LMArena German12871262
LMArena Russian12861193
LMArena Spanish12811289
LMArena Japanese1244—
LMArena Korean1237—

Instruction Following Grok-2 (Dec 2024) leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 66.9 (#202), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following12701247
LiveBench Instruction Following69.6%—

Long Context Too close to call

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 38.8 (#190), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query12761272

Writing & Preference Grok-2 (Dec 2024) leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 48.6 (#198), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text13051272
LMArena Creative Writing12841226
LMArena Multi-Turn12901252
Short-Story Creative Writing63.6%—
LiveBench Language45.6%—

Frequently asked questions

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 33.3 in the Noometry coding category.

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

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok-2 (Dec 2024) has 34 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper