Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4 xAI

48.1

Rank #56 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 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 long context, where Grok 4 leads 63.1 to 38.6.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderxAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index48.137.9
Released2025-07-09—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked4815

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 50.3 (#46), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding14081291
Aider Polyglot79.6%—
WeirdML45.7%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4: 32.3 (#68), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Terminal-Bench27.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard63%—
GDPval21.1%—
Cybench43%—
DeepResearch Bench47.3%—
BALROG43.6%—
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons66.6%—

Reasoning Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 36.7 (#65), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14091272
ARC-AGI-216%—
SimpleBench60.5%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark73.6%—
ARC-AGI-166.7%—
Chess Puzzles28%—
Epoch Capabilities Index146.44—
ForecastBench60.9—

Math Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 48.4 (#64), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math14221305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584%—
Omni-MATH60.3%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)19.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)2.1%—

Knowledge Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 53.8 (#55), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert14151295
GPQA Diamond87%—
MMLU-Pro85.1%—
Confabulations12.4%—
GPQA (HELM)72.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4: 33.7 (#94), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Vision1210—
GeoBench45%—

Multilingual Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 51.8 (#103), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English14031209
LMArena Chinese14271242
LMArena French14181260
LMArena German14291262
LMArena Russian14101193
LMArena Spanish14201289
LMArena Japanese1394—
LMArena Korean1377—

Instruction Following Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 79.2 (#5), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following13871247
IFEval94.9%—

Long Context Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 63.1 (#4), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14091272
Fiction.LiveBench94.4%—

Writing & Preference Grok 4 leads

Grok 4: 58.5 (#116), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

BenchmarkGrok 4Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text14111272
LMArena Creative Writing13971226
LMArena Multi-Turn14161252
Short-Story Creative Writing76.9%—
WildBench79.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Grok 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.1 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Grok 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper