Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Olmo 3.1 32B Think emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think 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.

Solar Open 100B (Reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 2
Long Context: 3
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: —

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

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Solar Open 100B (Reasoning)` vs `Olmo 3.1 32B Think`.

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 Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think debate, Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) scores 60 against Olmo 3.1 32B Think's 80. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think comparison.

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

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

Solar Open 100B (Reasoning)300ms

Olmo 3.1 32B Think300ms

Tokens per Second

Solar Open 100B (Reasoning)54

Olmo 3.1 32B Think70.595

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think

Power is only one part of the equation. This Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think 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, Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) would cost $0.018, whereas Olmo 3.1 32B Think would cost $0.018. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think Battle for You?

Choose Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) if...

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Olmo 3.1 32B Think 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 Solar Open 100B (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/