Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (32.7 vs 33.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

32.7

Rank #254 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 33.4 to 19.5.

Side by side

Olmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.733.4
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1631

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding12101276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts12081251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math12081251
Omni-MATH16.1%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
MMLU-Pro41.4%—
GPQA (HELM)28.7%—
LMArena Expert—1221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English11601205
LMArena Chinese11921222
LMArena Russian11871228

Instruction Following Too close to call

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following11861223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%
IFEval78%—

Long Context Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query11941251

Writing & Preference Too close to call

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text12181230
LMArena Creative Writing11991174
LMArena Multi-Turn12211222
WildBench73.4%—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (32.7 vs 33.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.2 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper