Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 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

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 36.3.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index37.956.8
Released—2026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked1539

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Coding12911502
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts12721496
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.41

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Math13051499
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Expert12951507
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English12091472
LMArena Chinese12421538
LMArena French12601503
LMArena German12621483
LMArena Russian11931481
LMArena Spanish12891492
LMArena Japanese—1467
LMArena Korean—1461

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following12471479

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query12721489

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text12721483
LMArena Creative Writing12261479
LMArena Multi-Turn12521489

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen3.8 Max share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper