Updated March 26, 2026· Based on independent benchmark data
GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh) leads in intelligence with a score of 54.0 vs 13.9.
| Metric | Olmo 3.1 32B Think | GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh) |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Score | 13.9 | 54.0 |
| Coding Score | 9.8 | 53.1 |
| Math Score | 77.3 | N/A |
| Speed (tok/s) | 92 tok/s | 72 tok/s |
| Latency (TTFT) | 0.65s | 83.91s |
| Input Price / 1M tokens | Free | $1.75 |
| Output Price / 1M tokens | Free | $14 |
| Context Window | N/A | N/A |
| Max Output Tokens | N/A | N/A |
| Input Modalities | Text | Text |
GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh) outperforms Olmo 3.1 32B Think on the intelligence index with a score of 54.0 compared to 13.9. For coding tasks, GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh) has the edge with a coding score of 53.1 vs 9.8.
Olmo 3.1 32B Think generates output significantly faster at 92 tok/s compared to GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh)'s 72 tok/s, making it 1.3x faster for streaming responses. Time to first token is 0.65s for Olmo 3.1 32B Think vs 83.91s for GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh), which affects perceived responsiveness in interactive applications.
Olmo 3.1 32B Think is completely free, while GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh) costs $1.75/1M input tokens and $14/1M output tokens.
Choose GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh) when you need higher intelligence (54.0), stronger coding performance (53.1).
GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh) scores higher on coding benchmarks (53.1 vs 9.8), making it the better choice for programming tasks.
Olmo 3.1 32B Think is faster, producing output at 92 tok/s compared to GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh)'s 72 tok/s.
No, Olmo 3.1 32B Think does not support image input. Neither model supports image input.
It depends on your priorities. GPT-5.3 Codex (xhigh) scores higher on intelligence (54.0), but Olmo 3.1 32B Think may be better for specific use cases like cost savings or speed-critical applications.
Data last synced: March 26, 2026
| Output Modalities | Text | Text |
| Free Tier | Yes | No |