Model Comparison
Olmo 3.1 32B Think
vs. Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Allen Institute for AI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)8 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, Intelligence, GPQA
Lowest Price
Olmo 3.1 32B Think
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Olmo 3.1 32B Think
45.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
28.7 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Olmo 3.1 32B Think is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Olmo 3.1 32B Think leads Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) by 7.1 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) wins 8 measurable categories, including Throughput, Intelligence, GPQA, HLE.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Olmo 3.1 32B Think
Allen Institute for AI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Olmo 3.1 32B Think | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $0.11/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Allen Institute for AI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Dec 12, 2025 | Mar 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 58.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 957ms |
| Latency | — | 35045ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 45.6 | 38.4 |
| Intelligence | 8.1 | 21.4 |
| Coding | — | 28.7 |
| Math | 77.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 59.1% | 80.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 76.3% | — |
| HLE | 6.0% | 13.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 69.5% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 77.3% | — |
| SciCode | 29.3% | 27.5% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 59.0% |
| IFBench | 66.0% | 66.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 0.0% | 86.8% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.0% | 24.2% |
Key Takeaways
Olmo 3.1 32B Think offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Olmo 3.1 32B Think has the strongest reasoning profile with a 45.6 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) reaches a 28.7 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Olmo 3.1 32B Think
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
- Code generation
- Software development
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives
