# Llama 13b vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 23.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-13b-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 8

## Summary

- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 13b scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 46.4 to 13.9.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 23.9 | 37.3 |
| Rank | 344 | 191 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 13b: 20.9 (#332)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 683 | 1292 |

## Reasoning

- Llama 13b: 13.4 (#327)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 728 | 1272 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 37.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 100.09 | — |
| HellaSwag | 79.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 75.2% | — |
| PIQA | 80.1% | — |
| WinoGrande | 73% | — |

## Math

- Llama 13b: 24.4 (#259)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 838 | 1305 |
| GSM8K | 20.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 13b: —
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1294 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 52.7% | — |
| BoolQ | 78.7% | — |
| MMLU | 47.7% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 56.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 77.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Llama 13b: —
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 13b: 16.8 (#292)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 819 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1241 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 13b: 36.9 (#300)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 781 | 1246 |

## Long Context

- Llama 13b: —
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1272 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 13b: 13.9 (#307)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 834 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 794 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 753 | 1252 |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 13b better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 23.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 13b or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 20.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 13b and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 13b has 21 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.