Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen3-4B
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 36.3 to 29.7.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 31.9 |
| Released | — | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 6 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —, Qwen3-4B: 27.6 (#100)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 35.7% |
Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen3-4B: 19.2 (#268)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | — |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen3-4B: 29.7 (#240)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 38.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 52.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1305 | — |
Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen3-4B: 33.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 52.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | — |
| LMArena French | 1260 | — |
| LMArena German | 1262 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1193 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1289 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen3-4B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3-4B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen3-4B?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen3-4B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-4B has 6.