Model comparison

Llama 2-7B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-7B Meta

29.1

Rank #317 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B 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 writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 50.2 to 28.0.

Side by side

Llama 2-7B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct specifications
Llama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderMetaAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index29.139.4
Released2023-07-18—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked2916

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding10021347

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts10091322
Chess Puzzles0%—
BIG-Bench Hard39.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index99.06—
HellaSwag77.2%—
LAMBADA73.3%—
PIQA78.8%—
WinoGrande69.2%—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math10421305
GSM8K16.7%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert10361308
ARC (AI2) Challenge45.9%—
BoolQ77.9%—
MMLU45.8%—
OpenBookQA58.6%—
TriviaQA73.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ScienceQA43.1%—

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English9731275
LMArena Chinese9731304
LMArena French9701328
LMArena German9781282
LMArena Russian9951268
LMArena Spanish10071336
LMArena Korean—1206

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following10061299

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query9991312

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BOlmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text10531311
LMArena Creative Writing10331264
LMArena Multi-Turn10291309

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-7B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 2-7B or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper