Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

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

32.2

Rank #248 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.4

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 37.4 to 19.2.

Side by side

Olmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.241.4
Released—2026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked1628

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.6 (#222), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding12101427
LMArena WebDev—1357
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 22.6 (#174), Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts12081414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 24.8 (#255), Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math12081428
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
Omni-MATH16.1%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.2 (#274), Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
MMLU-Pro41.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%
GPQA (HELM)28.7%—
LMArena Expert—1428

Multimodal Not comparable

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1240

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.0 (#243), Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English11601390
LMArena Chinese11921478
LMArena Russian11871389
LMArena French—1409
LMArena German—1393
LMArena Japanese—1345
LMArena Korean—1359
LMArena Spanish—1408

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.8 (#238), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following11861393
IFEval78%—

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#229), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query11941413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.3 (#231), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text12181409
LMArena Creative Writing11991362
LMArena Multi-Turn12211410
WildBench73.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 34.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Qwen3.5 27B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper