Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Olmo 3 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.7

Rank #183 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.7 leads 62.8 to 35.0.
  • Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
ProviderxAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index53.138.7
Released2026-09-21—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked3914

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 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding14271319
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
APEX-Agents54.6%—
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14131302
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 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math14071316
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 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert14221273
GPQA Diamond92.7%—
SimpleQA Verified56%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—

Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English13891255
LMArena Chinese14551300
LMArena French14551291
LMArena Russian13971254
LMArena German—1290
LMArena Spanish1400—

Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14041275

Long Context Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14131296

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text13991300
LMArena Creative Writing13911256
LMArena Multi-Turn13931290
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.7 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper