# Grok 4.5 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-5-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.5 leads 56.1 to 25.2.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 55.0 | 37.9 |
| Rank | 25 | 191 |
| Context | 500K | — |
| Input $/M | $2 | — |
| Output $/M | $6 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.5: 52.2 (#35)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1474 | 1291 |
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 42.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1553 | — |
| SciCode | 54.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 46.4% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,309 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 56.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 47.9% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 23.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 65.4% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 14% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1213 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,887 | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.5: 56.1 (#25)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1462 | 1272 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 70% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.2% | — |
| CritPt | 15.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 96.5% | — |
| LMCA | 45.2% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 74.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.92 | — |

## Math

- Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1459 | 1305 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 57.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 24.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 31% | — |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1466 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48.3% | — |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1288 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 27.3% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 22.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1452 | — |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1496 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1456 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1448 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1450 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1404 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1446 | 1247 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1272 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1448 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1442 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1456 | 1252 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1579 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.5 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Grok 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 55.0 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Grok 4.5 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Grok 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.