Model comparison
Mercury vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Mercury and Olmo 3.1 32b Think score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.6 vs 37.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Mercury scores higher in 2 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 4 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 25.2 to 17.5.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 37.9 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Mercury: 38.7 (#170), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1291 |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | 1272 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1295 |
Multilingual Mercury leads
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1242 |
| LMArena French | — | 1260 |
| LMArena German | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1289 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1247 |
Long Context Too close to call
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Mercury and Olmo 3.1 32b Think score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.6 vs 37.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Mercury or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (38.7 vs 37.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.