Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Olmo 3 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.7

Rank #183 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.5

Rank #62 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 35.0.
  • Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Olmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.747.5
Released—2026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.50
Output $ / M tokens—$3
Results tracked1437

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Coding13191467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
LMArena WebDev—1461
SciCode—40.7%
ALE-Bench—670.15

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3 32b Think: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts13021449
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
CritPt—2.9%
Chess Puzzles—17%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.65

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math13161450
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Expert12731454
GPQA Diamond—88.4%
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English12551424
LMArena Chinese13001477
LMArena French12911455
LMArena German12901452
LMArena Russian12541434
LMArena Japanese—1389
LMArena Korean—1379
LMArena Spanish—1432

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following12751425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query12961439
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text13001437
LMArena Creative Writing12561404
LMArena Multi-Turn12901438

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3 32b Think or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper