Model comparison

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.2 vs 33.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

33.2

Rank #247 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 33.4 to 22.6.

Side by side

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Granite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderIBMAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index33.233.4
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1231

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding11491276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Too close to call

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts11381251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Too close to call

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math11591251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert11311221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English10681205
LMArena Chinese11391222
LMArena Russian10631228

Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following11161223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query11551251

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text11271230
LMArena Creative Writing11161174
LMArena Multi-Turn10991222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.2 vs 33.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.4 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper