Model comparison

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct vs Qwen2-72B

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2-72B in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads 35.2 to 29.1.

Side by side

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Qwen2-72B specifications
Olmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.730.0
Released—2024-06-07
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1626

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 35.2 (#227), Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Coding12101196
WeirdML—11.3%
BigCodeBench Instruct—38.5%
BigCodeBench Complete—54%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: —, Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
TheAgentCompany—1.1%
METR Time Horizons—29.9%

Reasoning Too close to call

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 23.6 (#175), Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts12081191
Epoch Capabilities Index—125.28

Math Qwen2-72B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 26.8 (#255), Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Math12081235
Omni-MATH16.1%—
MATH Level 5—39.1%

Knowledge Qwen2-72B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 19.5 (#279), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
GPQA Diamond—40.8%
MMLU-Pro41.4%—
GPQA (HELM)28.7%—
LMArena Expert—1171
MMLU—82.4%

Multilingual Qwen2-72B leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 34.8 (#248), Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Non-English11601176
LMArena Chinese11921240
LMArena Russian11871169
LMArena French—1170
LMArena German—1151
LMArena Japanese—1111
LMArena Korean—1083
LMArena Spanish—1169

Instruction Following Too close to call

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 61.5 (#244), Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Instruction Following11861181
IFEval78%—

Long Context Too close to call

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 36.2 (#234), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Longer Query11941192

Writing & Preference Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct: 42.1 (#236), Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 2 0325 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Text12181203
LMArena Creative Writing11991181
LMArena Multi-Turn12211196
WildBench73.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct better than Qwen2-72B?

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.2 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct and Qwen2-72B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 2 0325 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper