Model comparison
Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 38.7 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 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.8 to 49.1.
Side by side
| Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.7 | 46.0 |
| Released | — | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.30 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1319 | 1482 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1593 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1302 | 1460 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |
Math Too close to call
Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1316 | 1456 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1273 | 1482 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1255 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1300 | 1504 |
| LMArena French | 1291 | 1465 |
| LMArena German | 1290 | 1438 |
| LMArena Russian | 1254 | 1415 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1448 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | 1439 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1296 | 1450 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1256 | 1384 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1290 | 1441 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Olmo 3 32b Think or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen3.8 27B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.