Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.1 Fast vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.1 Fast xAI

41.4

Rank #136 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 4.1 Fast scores higher in 5 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 43.4 to 25.2.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderxAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index41.437.9
Released2025-06-27—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.20—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked3215

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 34.1 (#245), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding14111291
LMArena WebDev1242—
ALE-Bench394.93—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard69.6%—
τ²-bench Banking13.1%—
LMArena Search1171—
Vending-Bench 21,107—

Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 43.4 (#49), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14071272
SimpleBench56%—
NYT Connections (extended)87.4%—
DTBench87.7%—
ForecastBench61—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math14081305
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions60.9%—
ProofBench4%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert13991295
Vectara Hallucination Rate17.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Vision1201—

Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English13911209
LMArena Chinese14411242
LMArena French14151260
LMArena German14041262
LMArena Russian13871193
LMArena Spanish14131289
LMArena Japanese1349—
LMArena Korean1361—

Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following13761247

Long Context Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query13901272

Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text14081272
LMArena Creative Writing13941226
LMArena Multi-Turn13891252
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1327—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper