Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B 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 21.3.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 20.1 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 60K | — |
| Max output | 54K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.027 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1070 | 1347 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | 1322 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.99 | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1086 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | 1308 |
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 959 | 1304 |
| LMArena German | 1014 | 1282 |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | 1268 |
| LMArena French | — | 1328 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1206 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1336 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1299 |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | 1309 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.2 1B or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.