Model comparison

Olmo 3 32b Think vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher in 2 categories and QwQ-32B in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 39.4.

Side by side

Olmo 3 32b Think and QwQ-32B specifications
Olmo 3 32b ThinkQwQ-32B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.139.4
Released—2024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1436

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), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding13181333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Reasoning Olmo 3 32b Think leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13021326
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwQ-32B
LMArena Math13151359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert12721323
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%

Multilingual QwQ-32B leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English12551306
LMArena Chinese13001378
LMArena French12911337
LMArena German12901313
LMArena Russian12551297
LMArena Japanese—1263
LMArena Korean—1278
LMArena Spanish—1353

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12751297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query12961308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads

Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3 32b ThinkQwQ-32B
LMArena Text13001329
LMArena Creative Writing12561288
LMArena Multi-Turn12891314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3 32b Think or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and QwQ-32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper