Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

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

39.4

Rank #168 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 36.3.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.451.5
Released—2026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2.50
Output $ / M tokens—$7.50
Results tracked1633

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding13471498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts13221483
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
DTBench—92.3%
LMCA—44%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.68

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Math13051490
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Expert13081488
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English12751474
LMArena Chinese13041530
LMArena Russian12681484
LMArena French1328—
LMArena German1282—
LMArena Korean1206—
LMArena Spanish1336—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following12991460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query13121482

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text13111476
LMArena Creative Writing12641449
LMArena Multi-Turn13091481
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen3.7 Max share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper