Model comparison

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads 50.9 to 35.7.

Side by side

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and Olmo 3.1 32b Think specifications
Kimi K2 Thinking TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderMoonshot AIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index45.837.9
Released2025-11-06—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked2115

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.4 (#178), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding14541291
LMArena WebDev1322—

Reasoning Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 32.5 (#75), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts14281272
Chess Puzzles20%—

Math Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 47.4 (#68), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math14291305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.1%—

Knowledge Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#69), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert14391295
GPQA Diamond84.2%—

Multilingual Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.4 (#109), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English13981209
LMArena Chinese14561242
LMArena French14251260
LMArena German13901262
LMArena Russian13911193
LMArena Spanish14061289
LMArena Japanese1357—
LMArena Korean1330—

Instruction Following Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.0 (#109), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following14031247

Long Context Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#102), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query14151272

Writing & Preference Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.0 (#104), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboOlmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text14151272
LMArena Creative Writing13741226
LMArena Multi-Turn14141252

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (38.4 vs 37.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper