Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen3.6 Flash 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 . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.1 to 35.7.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 38.8 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 13 |
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), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 326.4 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 77.1% |
| LMCA | — | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.26 |
Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1305 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen3.6 Flash?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen3.6 Flash 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.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen3.6 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.