Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen1.5-72B
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 30.8 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 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 35.7 to 11.5.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 30.8 |
| Released | — | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 22 |
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), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | 1165 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | 1148 |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1164 |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1209 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1260 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1262 | 1084 |
| LMArena Russian | 1193 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1289 | 1110 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1050 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | 1141 |
Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen1.5-72B?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen1.5-72B share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.