Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Olmo 3.1 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

37.9

Rank #191 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.5

Rank #62 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 35.7.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.947.5
Released—2026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.50
Output $ / M tokens—$3
Results tracked1537

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Coding12911467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
LMArena WebDev—1461
SciCode—40.7%
ALE-Bench—670.15

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts12721449
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
CritPt—2.9%
Chess Puzzles—17%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.65

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math13051450
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Expert12951454
GPQA Diamond—88.4%
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English12091424
LMArena Chinese12421477
LMArena French12601455
LMArena German12621452
LMArena Russian11931434
LMArena Spanish12891432
LMArena Japanese—1389
LMArena Korean—1379

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following12471425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query12721439
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text12721437
LMArena Creative Writing12261404
LMArena Multi-Turn12521438

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper