Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.3 vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think

Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.3 xAI

43.8

Rank #86 Confirmed

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

37.9

Rank #191 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.3 scores higher in 8 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.3 leads 52.5 to 35.7.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Think has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
ProviderxAIAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Noometry Index43.837.9
Released2026-04-17—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.25—
Output $ / M tokens$2.50—
Results tracked4015

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 41.6 (#121), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.7 (#189)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Coding14151291
LMArena WebDev1357—
SciCode47.3%—
WeirdML49.9%—
ALE-Bench944.17—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.3: 27.7 (#99), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
GDP.pdf8%—
LMArena Search1165—
Vending-Bench 235.26—

Reasoning Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 35.9 (#68), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 25.2 (#150)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Hard Prompts13961272
NYT Connections (extended)55.2%—
CritPt8%—
Chess Puzzles25%—
DTBench90.7%—
LMCA38.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.16—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 46.0 (#74), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 36.3 (#168)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Math13881305
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)42.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 414.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%—
ProofBench11%—

Knowledge Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 52.5 (#62), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.7 (#181)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Expert13851295
GPQA Diamond88.8%—
SimpleQA Verified33.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.3: 31.6 (#104), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Vision1229—
Blueprint-Bench 20%—

Multilingual Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 50.5 (#120), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.1 (#231)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Non-English13851209
LMArena Chinese14221242
LMArena French14121260
LMArena German13951262
LMArena Russian13991193
LMArena Spanish13981289
LMArena Japanese1379—
LMArena Korean1356—

Instruction Following Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 72.1 (#140), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.6 (#218)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Instruction Following13661247

Long Context Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 42.5 (#123), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#195)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Longer Query13931272

Writing & Preference Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 58.5 (#118), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.2 (#220)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Olmo 3.1 32b Think
LMArena Text13971272
LMArena Creative Writing13801226
LMArena Multi-Turn14061252
EQ-Bench 41075—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.3 better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?

Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 37.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.3 or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?

Grok 4.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.6 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.3 and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.3 has 40 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper