Model comparison
Llama 13b vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 23.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 13b scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 46.4 to 13.9.
Side by side
| Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 23.9 | 37.3 |
| Released | 2023-02-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 13b: 20.9 (#332), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 683 | 1292 |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 13b: 13.4 (#327), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 728 | 1272 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 37.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 100.09 | — |
| HellaSwag | 79.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 75.2% | — |
| PIQA | 80.1% | — |
| WinoGrande | 73% | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 13b: 24.4 (#259), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 838 | 1305 |
| GSM8K | 20.6% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1294 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 52.7% | — |
| BoolQ | 78.7% | — |
| MMLU | 47.7% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 56.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 77.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.3% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 13b: 16.8 (#292), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 819 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1241 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 13b: 36.9 (#300), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 781 | 1246 |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 13b: 13.9 (#307), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 834 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 794 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 753 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 13b better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 23.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 13b or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 20.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 13b and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 13b has 21 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.