Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

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

39.4

Rank #168 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 36.1.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderxAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index53.139.4
Released2026-09-21—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked3916

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding14271347
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
APEX-Agents54.6%—
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts14131322
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
CritPt18%—
Chess Puzzles38%—
Mystery Game Puzzles29%—
DTBench96%—
LMCA49.4%—
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53—

Math Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math14071305
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%—
ProofBench34%—

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert14221308
GPQA Diamond92.7%—
SimpleQA Verified56%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English13891275
LMArena Chinese14551304
LMArena French14551328
LMArena Russian13971268
LMArena Spanish14001336
LMArena German—1282
LMArena Korean—1206

Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14041299

Long Context Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query14131312

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text13991311
LMArena Creative Writing13911264
LMArena Multi-Turn13931309
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.7 or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper