Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.3 to 19.3.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.4 | 31.9 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $5.60 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 43 |
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), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 33.2 (#260)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1347 | 1292 |
| WeirdML | — | 16% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45.8% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 55.9% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.1 (#133)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 5.7% |
| BALROG | — | 16.2% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 35.8% |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.3 (#199)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1322 | 1271 |
| DTBench | — | 62.9% |
| LMCA | — | 13.4% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 79.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 129 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |
| HellaSwag | — | 84.8% |
| PIQA | — | 82.6% |
| WinoGrande | — | 82.3% |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 19.3 (#287)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1283 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 33% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 63.2% |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 27.0 (#253)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1308 | 1245 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 49.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 63.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 19.1% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 42.6% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 94.5% |
| MMLU | — | 85.3% |
| TriviaQA | — | 71.9% |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.0 (#213)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1275 | 1252 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1304 | 1272 |
| LMArena French | 1328 | 1280 |
| LMArena German | 1282 | 1234 |
| LMArena Korean | 1206 | 1188 |
| LMArena Russian | 1268 | 1264 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1336 | 1256 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1180 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.5 (#221)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1299 | 1254 |
| IFEval | — | 80.6% |
Long Context Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#188)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1312 | 1282 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.7 (#215)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1311 | 1269 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1264 | 1221 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1309 | 1272 |
| WildBench | — | 80.2% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 33.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.