Model comparison
Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen3 8B
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 reasoning, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 24.9 to 16.1.
Side by side
| Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.1 | 33.3 |
| Released | — | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.18 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 11 |
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 8B: 33.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 22.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1318 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: —, Qwen3 8B: 29.9 (#71)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 42.6% |
Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138), Qwen3 8B: 16.1 (#299)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1302 | — |
| DTBench | — | 59.7% |
| LMCA | — | 8.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 136.17 |
Math Too close to call
Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165), Qwen3 8B: 33.3 (#176)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 56.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1315 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 8B leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#164)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 4.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1272 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 8B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | — |
Long Context Olmo 3 32b Think leads
Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177), Qwen3 8B: 37.8 (#205)
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.1% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1296 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1256 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1289 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen3 8B?
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 8B better for coding?
Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen3 8B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.