Noometry

Model comparison

o1 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

o1 OpenAI

40.9

Rank #143 Confirmed

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

38.7

Rank #183 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where o1 leads 50.3 to 39.4.
  • Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o1Olmo 3 32b Think
ProviderOpenAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index40.938.7
Released2024-09-12—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K—
Max output100K—
Input $ / M tokens$15—
Output $ / M tokens$60—
Results tracked5214

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

Category by category

Coding o1 leads

o1: 46.1 (#70), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding13671319
Aider Polyglot61.7%—
WeirdML47.6%—
LiveBench Coding69.7%—
CadEval56%—
HumanEval+89%—
MBPP+80.2%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o1: 24.6 (#117), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
Cybench10%—
METR Time Horizons51.1%—

Reasoning o1 leads

o1: 27.9 (#111), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts13711302
SimpleBench41.7%—
ARC-AGI-130.7%—
Chess Puzzles15%—
EnigmaEval5.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning91.6%—
DTBench74.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis65.5%—
LMCA22.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index141.91—
LiveBench75.7%—

Math Too close to call

o1: 36.1 (#175), Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math13881316
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)14.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202573.3%—
LiveBench Math80.3%—
MATH Level 594.7%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)9.3%—

Knowledge o1 leads

o1: 41.5 (#110), Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert13611273
GPQA Diamond76.8%—
Humanity's Last Exam8%—
SimpleQA Verified41.1%—
Confabulations11.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

o1: 34.2 (#93), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1168—
GeoBench80%—
VPCT37%—
SpatialViz-Bench41.4%—

Multilingual o1 leads

o1: 48.6 (#142), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English13581255
LMArena Chinese13941300
LMArena French13441291
LMArena German13371290
LMArena Russian13561254
LMArena Japanese1346—
LMArena Korean1396—
LMArena Spanish1345—

Instruction Following o1 leads

o1: 74.8 (#86), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following13671275
LiveBench Instruction Following81.5%—

Long Context o1 leads

o1: 50.3 (#9), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query13781296
Fiction.LiveBench83.3%—

Writing & Preference o1 leads

o1: 55.6 (#144), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

Benchmarko1Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text13661300
LMArena Creative Writing13481256
LMArena Multi-Turn13691290
Short-Story Creative Writing70.2%—
LiveBench Language65.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o1 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is o1 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do o1 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper