Model comparison
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Wizardlm 13b
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 13b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in instruction following, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 57.7 to 53.5.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Wizardlm 13b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 33.2 | 31.4 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 10 |
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), Wizardlm 13b: 30.1 (#298)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | 1035 |
Reasoning Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), Wizardlm 13b: 19.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | 1018 |
Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), Wizardlm 13b: 30.2 (#238)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1159 | 1017 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), Wizardlm 13b: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | — |
Multilingual Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), Wizardlm 13b: 27.1 (#277)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | 1034 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1139 | 1023 |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | — |
Instruction Following Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), Wizardlm 13b: 53.5 (#285)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1048 |
Long Context Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#273)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | 1054 |
Writing & Preference Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), Wizardlm 13b: 30.5 (#287)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | 1077 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | 1047 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Wizardlm 13b?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.4 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Wizardlm 13b share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.