Model comparison
Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen1.5-72B
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 34.4 to 11.5.
Side by side
| Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.1 | 30.3 |
| Released | — | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 22 |
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: 38.0 (#169), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1318 | 1166 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138), Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1302 | 1148 |
Math Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165), Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1315 | 1164 |
Knowledge Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1272 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
Multilingual Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1255 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1300 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1291 | 1158 |
| LMArena German | 1290 | 1084 |
| LMArena Russian | 1255 | 1104 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1049 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |
Instruction Following Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | 1142 |
Long Context Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1296 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1256 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1289 | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen1.5-72B?
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3 32b Think or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen1.5-72B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.