Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.0 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

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

38.1

Rank #182 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.0

Rank #21 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.1 to 33.8.
  • Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Olmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.156.0
Released—2026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked1438

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.0 (#169), Qwen3.8 Max: 52.3 (#30)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Coding13181499
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1671
FrontierSWE—15.8%
SciCode—52.9%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3 32b Think: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 42.6 (#17)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.4 (#26)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts13021493
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.69

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.1 (#15)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Math13151498
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#25)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Expert12721504
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Olmo 3 32b Think: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 36.9 (#70)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.6 (#18)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English12551468
LMArena Chinese13001537
LMArena French12911502
LMArena German12901489
LMArena Russian12551478
LMArena Japanese—1466
LMArena Korean—1467
LMArena Spanish—1495

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.7 (#19)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following12751478

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.5 (#30)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query12961486

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.0 (#31)

BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text13001480
LMArena Creative Writing12561478
LMArena Multi-Turn12891487

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.0 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3 32b Think or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.3 versus 38.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen3.8 Max share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 38.

Related comparisons

Go deeper