Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen1.5-32B

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.1 to 13.5.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen1.5-32B specifications
Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-32B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.430.5
Released—2024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1621

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding13471155
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13221130

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math13051155

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Expert13081126
GPQA Diamond—30.7%
MMLU—74.4%

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English12751106
LMArena Chinese13041177
LMArena French13281101
LMArena German12821058
LMArena Korean12061008
LMArena Russian12681073
LMArena Spanish13361089
LMArena Japanese—1027

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12991116

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query13121146

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text13111137
LMArena Creative Writing12641083
LMArena Multi-Turn13091140

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen1.5-32B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper