# Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/olmo-3-32b-think-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 38.6 to 22.6.

## Snapshot

| | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.7 | 33.4 |
| Rank | 183 | 245 |
| Context | — | 33K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | — | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1319 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Reasoning

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1302 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.49 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1316 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1273 | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |

## Multilingual

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1255 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1300 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1254 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1291 | — |
| LMArena German | 1290 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |

## Long Context

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1296 | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1256 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1290 | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |

## FAQ

### Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Olmo 3 32b Think or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.