Model comparison
Llama 2-70B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.1 to 7.4.
Side by side
| Llama 2-70B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 24.4 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2023-07-18 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1079 | 1347 |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1073 | 1322 |
| DTBench | 41.6% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 64.9% | — |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | 50% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.79 | — |
| ForecastBench | 51.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | 85.3% | — |
| LAMBADA | 78.9% | — |
| PIQA | 82.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.2% | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1091 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 3.3% | — |
| GSM8K | 69.6% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1039 | 1308 |
| GPQA Diamond | 26.3% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.6% | — |
| MMLU | 69.9% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 60.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 87.6% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1045 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 995 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1090 | 1328 |
| LMArena German | 1041 | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | 964 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1083 | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1143 | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | 927 | — |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1071 | 1299 |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1062 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1115 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1075 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1088 | 1309 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 2-70B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 2-70B or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.