Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

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

38.8

Rank #168 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.9

Rank #239 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 38.9 to 22.4.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.832.9
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1631

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

Category by category

Coding Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 38.9 (#154), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding13461276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13221251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.41
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math13051251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert13071221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English12751205
LMArena Chinese13041222
LMArena Russian12681228
LMArena French1328—
LMArena German1283—
LMArena Korean1206—
LMArena Spanish1337—

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12981223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query13121251

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text13111230
LMArena Creative Writing12641174
LMArena Multi-Turn13091222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper