# Claude Opus 5.5 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

> Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-olmo-3-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 92.4 to 33.8.
- Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 38.1 |
| Rank | 3 | 182 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $4 | — |
| Output $/M | $20 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5.5: 71.4 (#1)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.0 (#169)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1545 | 1318 |
| FrontierCode | 54.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1820 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 24.9 (#138)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1545 | 1302 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| DTBench | 98.9% | — |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 33.8 (#165)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1315 |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 34.4 (#189)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1564 | 1272 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.4 (#205)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1513 | 1255 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1572 | 1300 |
| LMArena Russian | 1532 | 1255 |
| LMArena French | — | 1291 |
| LMArena German | — | 1290 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.4 (#193)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1535 | 1275 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#177)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1540 | 1296 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.2 (#188)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1518 | 1300 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1538 | 1256 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1520 | 1289 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 38.0 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.