# Claude Opus 4.6 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-6-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 25.2.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 58.2 | 37.9 |
| Rank | 20 | 191 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $5 | — |
| Output $/M | $25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1536 | 1291 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1547 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1272 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.24 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1305 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1489 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1502 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1510 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1247 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1272 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1503 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1505 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1513 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.