Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Hy4 preview
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Hy4 preview |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Ai2 | Tencent |
| Family | Olmo 3 1 32b Instruct | Hy4 |
| Model | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Hy4 preview |
| Version | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Hy4 preview |
| Lifecycle | active | preview |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-08-28 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 66K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 32.2B | 770B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 49B |
| License | apache-2.0 | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Unknown | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Unknown | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
13 comparable fields · 8 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Capabilities
Hy4 preview Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Hy4 preview FAQs
Is Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Hy4 preview better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Hy4 preview, 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 Hy4 preview?+
Only Hy4 preview has a directly sourced input price: $0.834 per million tokens. Only Hy4 preview has a directly sourced output price: $2.501 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Hy4 preview?+
Hy4 preview has the larger sourced context window. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct supports 66K and Hy4 preview supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Hy4 preview?+
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 Hy4 preview be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is open weight; Hy4 preview is open weight.
Can Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Hy4 preview understand images?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is not documented with image input; Hy4 preview is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Hy4 preview?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is 33K and Hy4 preview is —.
Do Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Hy4 preview support reasoning and tool use?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct: tool calling. Hy4 preview: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Hy4 preview?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct has 0 sourced provider routes; Hy4 preview has 1, so Hy4 preview has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Hy4 preview?+
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.