Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 38.8 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 2 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 48.3 to 42.8.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 40.1 |
| Released | — | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 38.9 (#154), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1346 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131), Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1322 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
Knowledge Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1307 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1275 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1304 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1328 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1283 | 1350 |
| LMArena Korean | 1206 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1268 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1337 | 1377 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1299 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1298 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1312 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1311 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1264 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1309 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Max share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.