# Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen Max

> Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/olmo-3-1-32b-think-vs-qwen-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen Max in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 36.3 to 22.3.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 34.7 |
| Rank | 191 | 230 |
| Context | — | 33K |
| Input $/M | — | $1.60 |
| Output $/M | — | $6.40 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
- Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | 1288 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 21.8% |

## Reasoning

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
- Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | 1269 |

## Math

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
- Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1275 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 16.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |

## Knowledge

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
- Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1248 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.1% |

## Multilingual

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
- Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1209 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1260 | 1330 |
| LMArena German | 1262 | 1254 |
| LMArena Russian | 1193 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1289 | 1290 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1142 |

## Instruction Following

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
- Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | 1262 |

## Long Context

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
- Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | 1288 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |

## Writing & Preference

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
- Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | 1277 |

## FAQ

### Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Qwen Max?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.9 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index.

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

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

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.