# Gemma 7B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-7b-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 7B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 46.4 to 27.2.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 29.5 | 37.3 |
| Rank | 295 | 191 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 7B: 29.9 (#290)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1048 | 1292 |
| HumanEval+ | 28.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 43.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 7B: 19.0 (#247)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1042 | 1272 |
| Adversarial NLI | 48.7% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 55.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 111.74 | — |
| HellaSwag | 82.2% | — |
| PIQA | 81.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 79% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 7B: 28.7 (#225)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1066 | 1305 |
| GSM8K | 46.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 7B: 26.8 (#248)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1002 | 1294 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 83.2% | — |
| MMLU | 66.1% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 78.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 72.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 7B: 25.3 (#282)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 999 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1035 | 1241 |
| LMArena French | 1024 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 993 | 1193 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 7B: 51.7 (#290)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1017 | 1246 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 7B: 31.1 (#277)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1022 | 1272 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 7B: 27.2 (#297)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

| Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1056 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1024 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 963 | 1252 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 7B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 7B or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 29.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 7B and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 7B has 27 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.