Model comparison
GPT-5.1-Codex vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
GPT-5.1-Codex and Olmo 3.1 32b Think score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.6 vs 37.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads 36.3 to 30.3.
- Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 37.9 |
| Released | 2025-11-12 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 6 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1-Codex leads
GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.9 (#116), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1291 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,245 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: 38.0 (#33), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 60.4% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 70.8% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1272 |
Math Olmo 3.1 32b Think leads
GPT-5.1-Codex: 30.3 (#235), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1295 |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1209 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1242 |
| LMArena French | — | 1260 |
| LMArena German | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1193 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1289 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1247 |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1272 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.1-Codex better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
GPT-5.1-Codex and Olmo 3.1 32b Think score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.6 vs 37.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is GPT-5.1-Codex or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.9 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1-Codex and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1-Codex has 6 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.