Model comparison
Mercury vs Olmo 3 32b Think
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
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 32b Think in 4 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 25.9 to 17.5.
- Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mercury | Olmo 3 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Inception | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 37.6 | 38.7 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 14 |
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 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1319 |
Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Mercury: 17.5 (#293), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1285 | 1302 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 21.6% | — |
Math Not comparable
Mercury: —, Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1316 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mercury: —, Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1273 |
Multilingual Too close to call
Mercury: 41.6 (#206), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1260 | 1255 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena French | — | 1291 |
| LMArena German | — | 1290 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1254 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Mercury: 65.2 (#224), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1239 | 1275 |
Long Context Too close to call
Mercury: 38.4 (#198), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | 1296 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Mercury: 46.2 (#221), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)
| Benchmark | Mercury | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1282 | 1300 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1191 | 1256 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1282 | 1290 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mercury better than Olmo 3 32b Think?
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 37.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Mercury or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (38.7 vs 38.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Mercury and Olmo 3 32b Think share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mercury has 9 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.