Model comparison
Llama 2-7B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 46.2 to 28.0.
Side by side
| Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2023-07-18 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 29 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1002 | 1291 |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1009 | 1272 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 39.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 99.06 | — |
| HellaSwag | 77.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 73.3% | — |
| PIQA | 78.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 69.2% | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1042 | 1305 |
| GSM8K | 16.7% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1036 | 1295 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 45.9% | — |
| BoolQ | 77.9% | — |
| MMLU | 45.8% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 58.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 2-7B: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.1% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 973 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 970 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 978 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 995 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1007 | 1289 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1006 | 1247 |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 999 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1053 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1029 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 2-7B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 2-7B or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.