Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen2-72B

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #300 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads 36.1 to 21.2.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen2-72B specifications
Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.430.0
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 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157), Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Coding13471196
WeirdML—11.3%
BigCodeBench Instruct—38.5%
BigCodeBench Complete—54%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
TheAgentCompany—1.1%
METR Time Horizons—29.9%

Reasoning Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts13221191
Epoch Capabilities Index—125.28

Math Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Math13051235
MATH Level 5—39.1%

Knowledge Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Expert13081171
GPQA Diamond—40.8%
MMLU—82.4%

Multilingual Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Non-English12751176
LMArena Chinese13041240
LMArena French13281170
LMArena German12821151
LMArena Korean12061083
LMArena Russian12681169
LMArena Spanish13361169
LMArena Japanese—1111

Instruction Following Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Instruction Following12991181

Long Context Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Longer Query13121192

Writing & Preference Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Text13111203
LMArena Creative Writing12641181
LMArena Multi-Turn13091196

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen2-72B?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen2-72B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper