Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 4 Scout vs Olmo 3 32b Think

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 27.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Llama 4 Scout Meta

27.4

Rank #323 Confirmed

Olmo 3 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.1

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 4 Scout scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 38.0 to 19.9.

Side by side

Llama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
ProviderMetaAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index27.438.1
Released2025-04-05—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K—
Max output4K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.30—
Results tracked4314

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Llama 4 Scout: 19.9 (#334), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.0 (#169)

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding12861318
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)9.1%—
SciCode17%—
BigCodeBench Complete43.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 4 Scout: 24.4 (#109), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard28.1%—

Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Llama 4 Scout: 9.2 (#339), Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138)

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts12661302
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark36.9%—
ARC-AGI-10.5%—
CritPt0%—
DTBench57.9%—
LMCA12%—
Epoch Capabilities Index129.64—
ForecastBench57.5—

Math Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Llama 4 Scout: 18.4 (#280), Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165)

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math12861315
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20257.8%—
Omni-MATH37.3%—
MATH Level 562.3%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)0%—

Knowledge Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Llama 4 Scout: 31.8 (#208), Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189)

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert12361272
GPQA Diamond51.8%—
MMLU-Pro74.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7.7%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 4 Scout: 31.6 (#98), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1118—
SpatialViz-Bench34.2%—

Multilingual Too close to call

Llama 4 Scout: 41.3 (#207), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205)

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English12531255
LMArena Chinese12561300
LMArena French12831291
LMArena German12741290
LMArena Russian12631255
LMArena Japanese1209—
LMArena Korean1207—
LMArena Spanish1277—

Instruction Following Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Llama 4 Scout: 66.0 (#212), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193)

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following12481275
IFEval81.8%—

Long Context Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#289), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177)

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query12651296
Fiction.LiveBench36%—

Writing & Preference Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Llama 4 Scout: 37.1 (#256), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188)

BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutOlmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text12791300
LMArena Creative Writing12491256
LMArena Multi-Turn12811289
EQ-Bench Creative Writing783—
WildBench78%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 4 Scout better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 27.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 4 Scout or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 19.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 4 Scout and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 4 Scout has 43 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper