# Gemma 2B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- 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 Think in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 46.4 to 24.1.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 37.3 |
| Rank | 305 | 191 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1292 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1272 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

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

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1294 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1241 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1193 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | 1246 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1272 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1252 |

## FAQ

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.

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

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.