Noometry

Model comparison

Grok-2 (Dec 2024) vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Grok-2 (Dec 2024) xAI

33.4

Rank #233 Confirmed

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)

38.8

Rank #168 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok-2 (Dec 2024) scores higher in 1 category and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 33.6 to 19.6.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
ProviderxAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index33.438.8
Released2024-08-13—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked3416

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 32.9 (#254), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 38.9 (#154)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Coding12881346
WeirdML22.2%—
LiveBench Coding46.4%—

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 16.4 (#294), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts12721322
SimpleBench22.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning54.8%—
DTBench65.2%—
LiveBench Data Analysis54.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.48—
LiveBench54.3%—

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 19.6 (#278), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Math12831305
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202511.5%—
LiveBench Math54.9%—
MATH Level 563.5%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)0.7%—

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 29.8 (#225), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Expert12541307
GPQA Diamond53.8%—
Confabulations20.1%—

Multilingual Too close to call

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 43.3 (#183), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Non-English12821275
LMArena Chinese12891304
LMArena French13171328
LMArena German12871283
LMArena Korean12371206
LMArena Russian12861268
LMArena Spanish12811337
LMArena Japanese1244—

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 67.1 (#197), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following12701298
LiveBench Instruction Following69.6%—

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 38.7 (#186), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query12761312

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Grok-2 (Dec 2024): 48.8 (#192), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179)

BenchmarkGrok-2 (Dec 2024)Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
LMArena Text13051311
LMArena Creative Writing12841264
LMArena Multi-Turn12901309
Short-Story Creative Writing63.6%—
LiveBench Language45.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok-2 (Dec 2024) better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok-2 (Dec 2024) or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok-2 (Dec 2024) and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok-2 (Dec 2024) has 34 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper