# Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Qwen Plus

> Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.9 vs 37.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

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

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Plus in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 36.3 to 23.3.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 37.1 |
| Rank | 191 | 210 |
| Context | — | 1M |
| Input $/M | — | $0.40 |
| Output $/M | — | $1.20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
- Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | 1328 |

## Reasoning

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
- Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | 1317 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| DTBench | — | 81.1% |
| LMCA | — | 24% |

## Math

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
- Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1326 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 17.8% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |

## Knowledge

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
- Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1328 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 48.1% |

## Multilingual

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
- Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1209 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1347 |
| LMArena Russian | 1193 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1260 | — |
| LMArena German | 1262 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1251 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1289 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
- Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | 1303 |

## Long Context

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
- Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | 1324 |

## Writing & Preference

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
- Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | 1336 |

## FAQ

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

Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Qwen Plus score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.9 vs 37.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

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

Qwen Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

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

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.