Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs Qwen3 VL 32B (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 Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Olmo 3.1 32B Think remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs Qwen3 VL 32B (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: 87.833tokens/sec

Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 8
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 2
Long Context: 3
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.003
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 84.657tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs Qwen3 VL 32B (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 Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Olmo 3.1 32B Think` vs `Qwen3 VL 32B (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 Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) debate, Olmo 3.1 32B Think scores 80 against Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)'s 80. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs Qwen3 VL 32B (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 Qwen3 VL 32B (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

Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)300ms

Tokens per Second

Olmo 3.1 32B Think87.833

Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)84.657

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

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

Power is only one part of the equation. This Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs Qwen3 VL 32B (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 Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) would cost $0.003. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

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

Choose Olmo 3.1 32B Think if...

Your top priority is raw performance and capability.

Cost is a secondary concern to power in your Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) decision.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Choose Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) if...

You need a highly responsive model for user-facing applications.

Your budget is a primary consideration in the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) choice.

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

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

Your Questions about the Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/