# Llama 2-7B vs Olmo 3 32b Think

> Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-7b-vs-olmo-3-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 49.1 to 28.0.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 38.7 |
| Rank | 317 | 183 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1002 | 1319 |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1009 | 1302 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 39.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 99.06 | — |
| HellaSwag | 77.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 73.3% | — |
| PIQA | 78.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 69.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1042 | 1316 |
| GSM8K | 16.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1036 | 1273 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 45.9% | — |
| BoolQ | 77.9% | — |
| MMLU | 45.8% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 58.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- Llama 2-7B: —
- Olmo 3 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1255 |
| LMArena Chinese | 973 | 1300 |
| LMArena French | 970 | 1291 |
| LMArena German | 978 | 1290 |
| LMArena Russian | 995 | 1254 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1007 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1006 | 1275 |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 999 | 1296 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)
- Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Olmo 3 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1053 | 1300 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1256 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1029 | 1290 |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 2-7B better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 2-7B or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.