Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen3.5 27B
Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 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 1 category and Qwen3.5 27B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.5 to 50.4.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 41.4 |
| Released | — | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 38.9 (#154), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1346 | 1427 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1357 |
| WeirdML | — | 39.5% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131), Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1322 | 1414 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| DTBench | — | 82.4% |
| LMCA | — | 34% |
Math Qwen3.5 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169), Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1428 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175), Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1307 | 1428 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1240 |
Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185), Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1275 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1304 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1328 | 1409 |
| LMArena German | 1283 | 1393 |
| LMArena Korean | 1206 | 1359 |
| LMArena Russian | 1268 | 1389 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1337 | 1408 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1345 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1298 | 1393 |
Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1312 | 1413 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1311 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1264 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1309 | 1410 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (38.9 vs 38.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen3.5 27B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.