# Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-pro-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 59.7 to 38.6.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 44.9 | 37.3 |
| Rank | 67 | 191 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $1.25 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.8 (#86)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1292 |
| 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: 29.1 (#81)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (#85)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1272 |
| 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: 31.9 (#191)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 55.8 (#41)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1294 |
| 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: 44.5 (#16)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

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

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.5 (#30)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1241 |
| LMArena French | 1473 | 1262 |
| LMArena German | 1487 | 1260 |
| LMArena Russian | 1460 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | 1288 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1462 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1435 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.2 (#71)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1246 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.7 (#5)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1272 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.9 (#60)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1252 |
| 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 Think?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.9 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.

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

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.8 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.

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

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.