Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.4 to 46.2.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 15 |
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: 33.7 (#253), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1291 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1272 |
Math Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1305 |
Knowledge Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1295 |
Multilingual Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1247 |
Long Context Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.1 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 33.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.