# Gemma 2B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

> Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 11

## Summary

- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 50.2 to 24.0.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 39.4 |
| Rank | 307 | 168 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1347 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1322 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1305 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1308 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1268 |
| LMArena French | — | 1328 |
| LMArena German | — | 1282 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1206 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1336 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1299 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1312 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1309 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 2B or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.