Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.8

Rank #168 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-Flash in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 50.7 to 42.8.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.842.3
Released—2026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked1632

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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding13461412
LMArena WebDev—1243
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13221404
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math13051407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert13071408
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English12751385
LMArena Chinese13041446
LMArena French13281412
LMArena German12831389
LMArena Korean12061344
LMArena Russian12681379
LMArena Spanish13371399
LMArena Japanese—1369

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following12981374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query13121392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text13111397
LMArena Creative Writing12641343
LMArena Multi-Turn13091393

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper