Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

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

38.8

Rank #168 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.0

Rank #66 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Plus in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 54.9 to 35.4.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.845.0
Released—2026-06-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.40
Output $ / M tokens—$1.60
Results tracked1632

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), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.1 (#200)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Coding13461473
FrontierCode—10.2%
SciCode—45.5%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.2 (#130)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131), Qwen3.7 Plus: 38.4 (#54)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts13221460
NYT Connections (extended)—74.8%
CritPt—9.1%
Chess Puzzles—24%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84%
LMCA—37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.39

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169), Qwen3.7 Plus: 49.3 (#47)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Math13051467
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#46)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Expert13071467
GPQA Diamond—87.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.2 (#30)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision—1281
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185), Qwen3.7 Plus: 55.0 (#36)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English12751445
LMArena Chinese13041510
LMArena French13281471
LMArena German12831471
LMArena Korean12061416
LMArena Russian12681457
LMArena Spanish13371453
LMArena Japanese—1411

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.9 (#49)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following12981439

Long Context Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#61)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query13121454

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.5 (#54)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text13111454
LMArena Creative Writing12641439
LMArena Multi-Turn13091459

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 36.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper