# Gemma 3 12B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-3-12b-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 12B scores higher in 4 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 4 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 36.3 to 22.3.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 32.1 | 37.9 |
| Rank | 262 | 191 |
| Context | 131K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.05 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.15 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 3 12B: 31.7 (#280)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1281 | 1291 |
| SciCode | 17.4% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 3 12B: 25.5 (#108)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 30.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 3 12B: 15.7 (#313)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1309 | 1272 |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| DTBench | 48.8% | — |
| LMCA | 4.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 123.5 | — |

## Math

- Gemma 3 12B: 22.3 (#279)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1307 | 1305 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 16.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 3 12B: 26.5 (#257)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1248 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 39.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 4.4% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemma 3 12B: —
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| MindCube | 46.7% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 3 12B: 45.7 (#165)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1318 | 1209 |
| LMArena German | 1370 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1335 | 1193 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1242 |
| LMArena French | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1289 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 3 12B: 68.6 (#186)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1299 | 1247 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 3 12B: 40.0 (#162)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1317 | 1272 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 3 12B: 47.5 (#209)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

| Benchmark | Gemma 3 12B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1334 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1331 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1334 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1126 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 3 12B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 3 12B or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 12B and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 12B has 24 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.