Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.9 vs 38.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 6 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 41.9 to 38.1.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 38.8 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | 1314 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | 1299 |
Math Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1298 |
Knowledge Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1289 |
Multilingual Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1209 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1262 | 1231 |
| LMArena Russian | 1193 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1260 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1207 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1289 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | 1275 |
Long Context Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | 1299 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.9 vs 38.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (37.7 vs 38.5); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.