Model comparison
Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 33.8 to 15.3.
Side by side
| Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.1 | 29.7 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.0 (#169), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1318 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1302 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1315 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1272 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1255 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1300 | — |
| LMArena French | 1291 | — |
| LMArena German | 1290 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1255 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1296 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1256 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1289 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3 32b Think or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (38.0 vs 38.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.