Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 19.9 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 Think in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 35.0 to 7.2.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 19.9 | 37.3 |
| 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 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1071 | 1292 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | 1272 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.95 | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1086 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | 1294 |
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | — |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 958 | 1241 |
| LMArena German | 1014 | 1260 |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | 1193 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1246 |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.2 1B or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.