Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 37.7 to 22.6.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 33.4 |
| Released | — | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 33K |
| Max output | — | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 31 |
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), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.49 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multilingual Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1209 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1193 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1260 | — |
| LMArena German | 1262 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1289 | — |
Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.