Model comparison
Olmo 3 32b Think vs phi-3-medium 14B
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
MicrosoftSummary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 35.0 to 9.1.
Side by side
| Olmo 3 32b Think | phi-3-medium 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 38.7 | 29.7 |
| Released | — | 2024-04-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172), phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1319 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1302 | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 121.23 |
| HellaSwag | — | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | — | 81.5% |
Math Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165), phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1316 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |
Knowledge Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190), phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 27.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1273 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 91.6% |
| MMLU | — | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 87.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1255 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1300 | — |
| LMArena French | 1291 | — |
| LMArena German | 1290 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1254 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1296 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1256 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1290 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than phi-3-medium 14B?
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3 32b Think or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?
Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and phi-3-medium 14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.