Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,311.90100% of row best · rating · olmo-3.1-32b-instruct; 95% CI [1305.73447366, 1318.07100374]; votes 11463; rank 223 | 1,287.1398% of row best · rating · llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct; 95% CI [1282.87677682, 1291.39199009]; votes 39349; rank 243 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Ai2 | Meta |
| Family | Olmo 3 1 32b Instruct | Llama 4 Maverick 17b 128e Instruct |
| Model | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
| Version | Olmo-3.1-32B-Instruct | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-04-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 66K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 32.2B | 401.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 17B |
| License | apache-2.0 | other |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Unknown | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Unknown | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | chat, generation, tools |
13 comparable fields · 8 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Capabilities
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct 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 |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct FAQs
Is Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct, 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 Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Only Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has a directly sourced input price: $0.20 per million tokens. Only Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has a directly sourced output price: $0.696 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct supports 66K and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
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 Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is open weight; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is open weight.
Can Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct understand images?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is not documented with image input; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct is 33K and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is —.
Do Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct: tool calling. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct has 0 sourced provider routes; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has 1, so Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
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.