Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen3 14B
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 25.4 to 18.1.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 35.0 |
| Released | — | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 12 |
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: 38.9 (#154), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1346 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1322 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |
Math Qwen3 14B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1305 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1307 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1275 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1304 | — |
| LMArena French | 1328 | — |
| LMArena German | 1283 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1206 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1268 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1337 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1298 | — |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1312 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1264 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1309 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen3 14B?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 35.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen3 14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.