Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

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

32.7

Rank #254 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.8 to 42.1.

Side by side

Olmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.746.0
Released—2026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.99
Output $ / M tokens—$1.49
Results tracked1631

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding12101482
LMArena WebDev—1593
SciCode—46.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents—47.5%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts12081460
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
CritPt—5.4%
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.38

Math Qwen3.8 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math12081456
ProofBench—16%
Omni-MATH16.1%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
MMLU-Pro41.4%—
GPQA (HELM)28.7%—
LMArena Expert—1482

Multimodal Not comparable

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English11601430
LMArena Chinese11921504
LMArena Russian11871415
LMArena French—1465
LMArena German—1438
LMArena Japanese—1384
LMArena Korean—1393
LMArena Spanish—1448

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following11861439
IFEval78%—

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query11941450

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text12181441
LMArena Creative Writing11991384
LMArena Multi-Turn12211441
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
WildBench73.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 35.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Qwen3.8 27B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper