# Claude Fable 5.1 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

> Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-fable-5-1-vs-olmo-3-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.6 to 36.5.
- Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 69.0 | 38.7 |
| Rank | 2 | 183 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $10 | — |
| Output $/M | $50 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | 1319 |
| FrontierCode | 50.9% | — |
| CursorBench | 51.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1744 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 56.3% | — |
| SciCode | 63.1% | — |
| GSO | 88.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 92.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 73.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,143 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 68.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 17.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 29.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,422 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1302 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 57.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 58% | — |
| DTBench | 97.6% | — |
| LMCA | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 164.7 | — |

## Math

- Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1525 | 1316 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 90.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 87.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1535 | 1273 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 70.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1318 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 41.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 70% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1513 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1255 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1586 | 1300 |
| LMArena French | 1525 | 1291 |
| LMArena German | 1500 | 1290 |
| LMArena Russian | 1521 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1543 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1534 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1516 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1275 |

## Long Context

- Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1522 | 1296 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

| Benchmark | Claude Fable 5.1 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1510 | 1300 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1507 | 1256 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1492 | 1290 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2162 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 69.0 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.