Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

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

39.4

Rank #168 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.5

Rank #62 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 36.1.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.447.5
Released—2026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.50
Output $ / M tokens—$3
Results tracked1637

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Coding13471467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
LMArena WebDev—1461
SciCode—40.7%
ALE-Bench—670.15

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts13221449
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
CritPt—2.9%
Chess Puzzles—17%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.65

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math13051450
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Expert13081454
GPQA Diamond—88.4%
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English12751424
LMArena Chinese13041477
LMArena French13281455
LMArena German12821452
LMArena Korean12061379
LMArena Russian12681434
LMArena Spanish13361432
LMArena Japanese—1389

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following12991425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query13121439
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text13111437
LMArena Creative Writing12641404
LMArena Multi-Turn13091438

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper