# Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Trinity Large Thinking

> Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Trinity Large Thinking score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.9 vs 38.6), 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-trinity-large-thinking
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher in 2 categories and Trinity Large Thinking in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 25.2 to 16.9.

## Snapshot

| | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Arcee AI |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 38.6 |
| Rank | 191 | 185 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 34.1 (#244)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | 1381 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1238 |
| SciCode | — | 36.1% |

## Reasoning

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 16.9 (#298)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | 1350 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 16.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 41.6% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 15.6% |

## Math

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 37.6 (#149)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | 1366 |

## Knowledge

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 40.9 (#113)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1360 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 6.9% |

## Multilingual

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 46.2 (#160)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1209 | 1325 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1373 |
| LMArena French | 1260 | 1374 |
| LMArena German | 1262 | 1356 |
| LMArena Russian | 1193 | 1337 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1289 | 1357 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1311 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1306 |

## Instruction Following

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 70.5 (#162)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1247 | 1334 |

## Long Context

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 41.3 (#144)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | 1355 |

## Writing & Preference

- Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
- Trinity Large Thinking: 53.8 (#158)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1272 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | 1320 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | 1342 |

## FAQ

### Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Trinity Large Thinking?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Trinity Large Thinking score almost the same on the Noometry Index (37.9 vs 38.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think or Trinity Large Thinking better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Trinity Large Thinking share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Trinity Large Thinking has 24.