# Claude Opus 4.5 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

> Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-olmo-3-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 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 knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 56.4 to 34.4.
- Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 50.5 | 38.1 |
| Rank | 39 | 182 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $5 | — |
| Output $/M | $25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.5: 55.4 (#21)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.0 (#169)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1318 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 76.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1493 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 70.7% | — |
| GSO | 26.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 63.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,025 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.77 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.5: 47.2 (#11)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 63.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 77.5% | — |
| GDPval | 45.5% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 3.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 84% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 24.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 79.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 92.3% | — |
| Cybench | 82% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.8% | — |
| OSWorld | 66.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1180 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,967 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.5: 42.5 (#43)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1476 | 1302 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 52.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 22% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 44.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150.1 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.5: 38.5 (#85)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1463 | 1315 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 34.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 36% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 20.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.5: 56.4 (#38)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1488 | 1272 |
| GPQA Diamond | 86% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 45.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.5: 31.1 (#99)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| GeoBench | 75% | — |
| VPCT | 40% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1462 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.5: 54.5 (#45)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1255 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | 1300 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1291 |
| LMArena German | 1449 | 1290 |
| LMArena Russian | 1448 | 1255 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1424 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1455 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.5: 77.7 (#20)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1275 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.5: 46.4 (#21)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | 1296 |
| CL-bench | 21.1% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.5: 68.2 (#28)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1300 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1445 | 1256 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1466 | 1289 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1687 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.4 versus 38.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.