Model comparison
Granite 4.0 H Small vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.0 H Small scores higher in 2 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 33.6 to 29.3.
Side by side
| Granite 4.0 H Small | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 37.3 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Granite 4.0 H Small: 35.8 (#207), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 H Small | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1247 | 1292 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Granite 4.0 H Small: 23.4 (#164), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 H Small | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1240 | 1272 |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Granite 4.0 H Small: 29.3 (#219), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 H Small | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1251 | 1305 |
| Omni-MATH | 29.6% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Granite 4.0 H Small: 31.5 (#210), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 H Small | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1244 | 1294 |
| MMLU-Pro | 56.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.2% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 38.3% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Granite 4.0 H Small: 38.7 (#223), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 H Small | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1250 | 1241 |
| LMArena Russian | 1198 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1258 | 1288 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
Instruction Following Granite 4.0 H Small leads
Granite 4.0 H Small: 68.9 (#178), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 H Small | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1221 | 1246 |
| IFEval | 89% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
Granite 4.0 H Small: 37.6 (#209), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 H Small | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1240 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Granite 4.0 H Small: 44.0 (#222), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 H Small | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1241 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1210 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1243 | 1252 |
| WildBench | 73.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.0 H Small better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 4.0 H Small or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 35.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.0 H Small and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.0 H Small has 19 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.