Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5 vs Olmo 3 32b Think

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5 Anthropic

67.8

Rank #4 Confirmed

Olmo 3 32b Think Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.7

Rank #183 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 25.9.
  • Olmo 3 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
ProviderAnthropicAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index67.838.7
Released2026-07-24—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$5—
Output $ / M tokens$25—
Results tracked5714

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Olmo 3 32b Think: 38.6 (#172)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Coding15341319
DeepSWE73.6%—
FrontierCode53.4%—
CursorBench46.6%—
LMArena WebDev1691—
FrontierSWE52%—
SciCode56.4%—
WeirdML91.8%—
ALE-Bench2,165—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
APEX-Agents65.8%—
OSWorld 2.031.4%—
τ²-bench Banking48.7%—
PostTrainBench35%—
BALROG63.4%—
GBAEval79.6%—
GDP.pdf24%—
Vending-Bench 211,182—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Olmo 3 32b Think: 25.9 (#140)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts15261302
ARC-AGI-290.4%—
SimpleBench80.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)94.3%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt29.1%—
Chess Puzzles42%—
EBR-Bench45.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles59%—
DTBench97.9%—
LMCA64.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.12—
Epoch Capabilities Index162.78—

Math Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Olmo 3 32b Think: 36.5 (#165)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Math15311316
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)85.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 473.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.9%—
ProofBench99%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Olmo 3 32b Think: 35.0 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Expert15571273
GPQA Diamond93.9%—
SimpleQA Verified59.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Olmo 3 32b Think: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Vision1319—
Blueprint-Bench 230.4%—
Furniture Assembly60.8%—
LMArena Document1516—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Olmo 3 32b Think: 41.2 (#210)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Non-English15011255
LMArena Chinese15741300
LMArena French15191291
LMArena German15241290
LMArena Russian15071254
LMArena Japanese1516—
LMArena Korean1521—
LMArena Spanish1519—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Olmo 3 32b Think: 67.2 (#198)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following15171275

Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Olmo 3 32b Think: 39.4 (#182)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query15151296

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Olmo 3 32b Think: 49.1 (#193)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Olmo 3 32b Think
LMArena Text15071300
LMArena Creative Writing14911256
LMArena Multi-Turn14991290
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2133—
EQ-Bench 41385—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5 better than Olmo 3 32b Think?

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 38.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Opus 5 or Olmo 3 32b Think better for coding?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Olmo 3 32b Think share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3 32b Think has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper