# Command A vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

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

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 5 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 37.7 to 27.2.

## Snapshot

| | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 37.9 |
| Rank | 215 | 191 |
| Context | 256K | — |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command A: 27.2 (#322)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

| Benchmark | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | 1291 |
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Command A: 35.9 (#40)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command A: 18.3 (#283)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1272 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |

## Math

- Command A: 36.2 (#171)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

| Benchmark | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1305 |

## Knowledge

- Command A: 37.1 (#159)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

| Benchmark | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1295 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Command A: 45.3 (#170)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

| Benchmark | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1351 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1285 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Command A: 69.1 (#177)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

| Benchmark | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1247 |

## Long Context

- Command A: 40.6 (#151)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

| Benchmark | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1272 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command A: 47.6 (#208)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

| Benchmark | Command A | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command A better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Command A or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Command A and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.