Model comparison
Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen3.5-9B
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 46.0 to 34.4.
Side by side
| Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.1 | 33.3 |
| Released | — | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 10 |
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), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.3 (#213)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 27.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1318 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.4 (#143)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |
Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138), Qwen3.5-9B: 22.5 (#178)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1302 | — |
| DTBench | — | 71.2% |
| LMCA | — | 24.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.45 |
Math Too close to call
Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165), Qwen3.5-9B: 33.5 (#174)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1315 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#77)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 79% |
| LMArena Expert | 1272 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1296 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1256 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1289 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen3.5-9B?
Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3 32b Think or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?
Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 35.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen3.5-9B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.