Model comparison
Grok 4.7 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 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 writing & preference, where Grok 4.7 leads 70.1 to 46.4.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 46.6 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2026-09-21 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 500K | — |
| Max output | 500K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $6 | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1423 | 1292 |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1636 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| SciCode | 57.4% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1409 | 1272 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| CritPt | 17.7% | — |
Math Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1393 | 1305 |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1413 | 1294 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1476 | 1241 |
| LMArena Russian | 1396 | 1193 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1246 |
Long Context Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads
Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1397 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.7 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 4.7 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.0 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.