Model comparison
Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen-14B
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen-14B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 49.1 to 27.6.
Side by side
| Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.7 | 31.4 |
| Released | — | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 18 |
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), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1319 | 1071 |
Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1302 | 1027 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1316 | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1273 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210), Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1255 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1300 | 1077 |
| LMArena French | 1291 | — |
| LMArena German | 1290 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1254 | — |
Instruction Following Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | 1031 |
Long Context Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182), Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1296 | 1028 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1256 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1290 | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen-14B?
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3 32b Think or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen-14B share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.