Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent xAI

46.2

Rank #65 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 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 43.9 to 25.2.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderxAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index46.237.9
Released2026-03-09—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$2.50—
Results tracked2015

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.0 (#92), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding14571291

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Search1204—

Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.9 (#48), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14481272
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—

Math Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.4 (#104), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math14421305

Knowledge Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.4 (#119), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert14451295

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 40.5 (#48), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Vision1259—

Multilingual Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.4 (#43), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14401209
LMArena Chinese14751242
LMArena French14661260
LMArena German14561262
LMArena Russian14571193
LMArena Spanish14471289
LMArena Japanese1405—
LMArena Korean1416—

Instruction Following Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 74.8 (#84), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14201247

Long Context Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#88), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14311272

Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.0 (#59), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

BenchmarkGrok 4.20 Multi-AgentOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text14501272
LMArena Creative Writing14361226
LMArena Multi-Turn14521252

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.2 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper