Noometry

Model comparison

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

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

39.4

Rank #168 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 36.3.
  • Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Olmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
ProviderAllen Institute for AI (Ai2)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.456.8
Released—2026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked1639

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Coding13471502
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts13221496
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.41

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Math13051499
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Expert13081507
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English12751472
LMArena Chinese13041538
LMArena French13281503
LMArena German12821483
LMArena Korean12061461
LMArena Russian12681481
LMArena Spanish13361492
LMArena Japanese—1467

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following12991479

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query13121489

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkOlmo 3.1 32b InstructQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text13111483
LMArena Creative Writing12641479
LMArena Multi-Turn13091489

Frequently asked questions

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Qwen3.8 Max share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper