Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning): The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Olmo 3.1 32B Think emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

Olmo 3.1 32B Think

Other

Reasoning: 8
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 70.595tokens/sec

K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 4
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 2
Long Context: 3
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 70.189tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Olmo 3.1 32B Think` vs `K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning)`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) debate, Olmo 3.1 32B Think scores 80 against K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning)'s 40. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

Olmo 3.1 32B Think300ms

K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning)300ms

Tokens per Second

Olmo 3.1 32B Think70.595

K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning)70.189

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning)

Power is only one part of the equation. This Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, Olmo 3.1 32B Think would cost $0.018, whereas K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) would cost $0.018. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) Battle for You?

Choose Olmo 3.1 32B Think if...

Your top priority is raw performance and capability.

You are working in a technical or scientific field requiring the highest accuracy.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Choose K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs K-EXAONE (Non-reasoning) Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/