Model comparison
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct vs Qwen3 14B
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 14B leads 39.3 to 19.5.
Side by side
| Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.7 | 35.5 |
| Released | — | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 14B leads
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1210 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
Reasoning Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1208 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |
Math Qwen3 14B leads
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| Omni-MATH | 16.1% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1208 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | 41.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 28.7% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1160 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1192 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1187 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 78% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1186 | — |
Long Context Qwen3 14B leads
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1194 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1218 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1199 | — |
| WildBench | 73.4% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1221 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better than Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 35.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Qwen3 14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.