# Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct vs Qwen-14B

> Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/olmo-2-0325-32b-instruct-vs-qwen-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 10

## Summary

- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen-14B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads 42.1 to 27.6.

## Snapshot

| | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.7 | 31.4 |
| Rank | 254 | 275 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227)
- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)

| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1210 | 1071 |

## Reasoning

- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175)
- Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)

| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1208 | 1027 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |

## Math

- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255)
- Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)

| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1208 | 1068 |
| Omni-MATH | 16.1% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |

## Knowledge

- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279)
- Qwen-14B: —

| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | 41.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 28.7% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |

## Multilingual

- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248)
- Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)

| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1160 | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1192 | 1077 |
| LMArena Russian | 1187 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244)
- Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)

| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1186 | 1031 |
| IFEval | 78% | — |

## Long Context

- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234)
- Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)

| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1194 | 1028 |

## Writing & Preference

- Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236)
- Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)

| Benchmark | Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1218 | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1199 | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1221 | 1022 |
| WildBench | 73.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better than Qwen-14B?

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct or Qwen-14B better for coding?

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.2 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Qwen-14B share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.