Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen Max
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen Max in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 36.3 to 22.3.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 34.7 |
| Released | — | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 33K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | 1288 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 21.8% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | 1269 |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1275 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 16.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1248 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.1% |
Multilingual Qwen Max leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1209 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1260 | 1330 |
| LMArena German | 1262 | 1254 |
| LMArena Russian | 1193 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1289 | 1290 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1142 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | 1262 |
Long Context Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | 1288 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
Writing & Preference Qwen Max leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | 1277 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen Max?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think or Qwen Max better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen Max share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.