Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen3.5 Plus
Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 49.6 to 36.3.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 42.9 |
| Released | — | 2026-02-16 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 15 |
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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 621.92 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —, Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 0.54 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 Plus leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.8 (#74)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
| DTBench | — | 80.5% |
| LMCA | — | 36.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.78 |
Math Qwen3.5 Plus leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1305 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 21% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 2.1% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5 Plus leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 25.4% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5 Plus leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | — | 19.8% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 12.4% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen3.5 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen3.5 Plus share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.