# Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

> Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-pro-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 16

## Summary

- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 56.0 to 36.1.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 39.4 |
| Rank | 75 | 168 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $1.25 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1347 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1322 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1305 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1308 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1304 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | 1328 |
| LMArena German | 1487 | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | 1206 |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | 1268 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1299 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1312 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1309 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.