# o3 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

> o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o3-vs-olmo-3-1-32b-think
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. o3 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 knowledge, where o3 leads 54.6 to 35.7.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 47.5 | 37.9 |
| Rank | 61 | 191 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $2 | — |
| Output $/M | $8 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o3: 46.8 (#64)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1408 | 1291 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 62.3% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 58.4% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 81.3% | — |
| GSO | 8.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 52.4% | — |
| CadEval | 74% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 933.55 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o3: 34.5 (#44)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 63% | — |
| GDPval | 30.8% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 45.2% | — |
| OSWorld | 23% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1144 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 65.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- o3: 32.0 (#78)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1402 | 1272 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 6.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 60.8% | — |
| CritPt | 1.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 13.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| DTBench | 84.8% | — |
| LMCA | 39.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.86 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62.5 | — |

## Math

- o3: 50.2 (#58)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1426 | 1305 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 33.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 71.4% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 97.8% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 18.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |

## Knowledge

- o3: 54.6 (#52)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1402 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 81.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 20.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.4% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 85.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 14.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 75.3% | — |

## Multimodal

- o3: 41.4 (#36)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1214 | — |
| GeoBench | 74% | — |
| VPCT | 52% | — |

## Multilingual

- o3: 51.7 (#105)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1401 | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1437 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1430 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1420 | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | 1406 | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1395 | 1289 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1370 | — |

## Instruction Following

- o3: 72.8 (#127)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1368 | 1247 |
| IFEval | 86.9% | — |

## Long Context

- o3: 53.3 (#6)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1372 | 1272 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 88.9% | — |
| CL-bench | 17.8% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o3: 63.5 (#64)
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

| Benchmark | o3 | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1410 | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1359 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1405 | 1252 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.9% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1676 | — |
| WildBench | 86.1% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o3 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is o3 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

o3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.8 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do o3 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. o3 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.