# Llama 2-7B vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-7b-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B 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 28.1.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 28.6 | 37.3 |
| Rank | 315 | 191 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-7B: 28.7 (#302)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1002 | 1292 |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-7B: 15.1 (#309)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1009 | 1272 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 39.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 98.54 | — |
| HellaSwag | 77.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 73.3% | — |
| PIQA | 78.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 69.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#231)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1042 | 1305 |
| GSM8K | 16.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-7B: 27.7 (#243)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1036 | 1294 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 45.9% | — |
| BoolQ | 77.9% | — |
| MMLU | 45.8% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 58.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- Llama 2-7B: —
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-7B: 23.9 (#288)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 973 | 1241 |
| LMArena French | 969 | 1262 |
| LMArena German | 978 | 1260 |
| LMArena Russian | 995 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1007 | 1288 |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-7B: 51.0 (#293)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1006 | 1246 |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#282)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 999 | 1272 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-7B: 28.1 (#293)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1053 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1029 | 1252 |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 2-7B better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 2-7B or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.