# Olmo 3 32b Think vs Qwen3 14B

> Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/olmo-3-32b-think-vs-qwen3-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Olmo 3 32b Think leads 25.9 to 18.5.

## Snapshot

| | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.7 | 35.5 |
| Rank | 183 | 225 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.35 |
| Output $/M | — | $1.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)
- Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1319 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Olmo 3 32b Think: —
- Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |

## Reasoning

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)
- Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1302 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |

## Math

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1316 | — |

## Knowledge

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)
- Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1273 | — |

## Multilingual

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1255 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1300 | — |
| LMArena French | 1291 | — |
| LMArena German | 1290 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1254 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | — |

## Long Context

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1296 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Olmo 3 32b Think | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1300 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1256 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1290 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Olmo 3 32b Think better than Qwen3 14B?

Olmo 3 32b Think is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.7 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Olmo 3 32b Think or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Olmo 3 32b Think scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Olmo 3 32b Think and Qwen3 14B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3 32b Think has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.