Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 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 knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 35.7.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 42.2 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1305 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.