Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning): The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (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 Instruct

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.000
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 45.558tokens/sec

Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning)

Other

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

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct` vs `Qwen3 VL 4B (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 Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) debate, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct scores 60 against Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning)'s 30. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (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 Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (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 Instruct300ms

Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning)300ms

Tokens per Second

Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct45.558

Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning)20

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning)

Power is only one part of the equation. This Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (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 Instruct would cost $0.000, whereas Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) would cost $0.018. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) Battle for You?

Choose Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct if...

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

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Qwen3 VL 4B (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 Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B (Reasoning) Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/