Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 36.1.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.4 | 42.2 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 11 |
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: 39.5 (#157), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1347 | — |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1322 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1305 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1308 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1275 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1304 | — |
| LMArena French | 1328 | — |
| LMArena German | 1282 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1206 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1268 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1336 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1299 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1312 | — |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1264 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1309 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (39.5 vs 39.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.