Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen1.5-72B

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.8 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 Qwen1.5-72B 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 11.5.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen1.5-72B specifications
Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-72B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.430.8
Released—2024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1622

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), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Coding13471165
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—40.3%
HumanEval+—59.1%
MBPP+—61.6%

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts13221148

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Math13051164

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Expert13081136
GPQA Diamond—28.8%

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Non-English12751135
LMArena Chinese13041186
LMArena French13281159
LMArena German12821084
LMArena Korean12061050
LMArena Russian12681104
LMArena Spanish13361110
LMArena Japanese—1061

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Instruction Following12991141

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Longer Query13121157

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Text13111166
LMArena Creative Writing12641137
LMArena Multi-Turn13091160

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen1.5-72B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper