Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Helix 02
At a Glance
| Compare | Helix 02Figure | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 66K | Not reported |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → |
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Helix 02 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Ai2 | Figure |
| Family | Olmo 3 1 32b Instruct | Helix |
| Model | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Helix 02 |
| Version | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | 02 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-01-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Robot state |
| Output modalities | Text | Robot action |
| Context window | 66K | Unknown |
| Total parameters | 32.2B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Unknown | No |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Unknown | Unknown |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | dexterous-manipulation, long-horizon-control, tactile-control, whole-body-control |
| Robotics model type | Unknown | Vision-language-action model |
| Action representation | Unknown | Full-body joint targets |
| Control architecture | Unknown | Semantic reasoning, visuomotor policy, and kHz whole-body controller |
| Inference location | Unknown | On device |
| Native control rate (Hz) | Unknown | Unknown |
| Supported embodiments | Unknown | Figure 03 |
| Training data | Unknown | Figure reports more than 1,000 hours of human motion data plus sim-to-real reinforcement learning for its whole-body controller. |
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Capabilities
Helix 02 Capabilities
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Helix 02 FAQs
Is Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Helix 02 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Helix 02, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Helix 02?+
Neither model has a directly sourced input price in this comparison. Neither model has a directly sourced output price in this comparison.
Which has a larger context window, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Helix 02?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is 66K and Helix 02 is —.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Helix 02?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Helix 02 be self-hosted?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is open weight; Helix 02 is not marked open weight.
Can Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Helix 02 understand images?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is not documented with image input; Helix 02 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Helix 02?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is 33K and Helix 02 is —.
Do Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Helix 02 support reasoning and tool use?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct: tool calling. Helix 02: image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Helix 02?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct has 0 sourced provider routes; Helix 02 has 0, a tie.
Which offers better value, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Helix 02?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.