Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.2 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 33.1 to 10.2.
- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | IBM |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 33.2 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 7 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1149 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1138 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1159 |
Knowledge Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1131 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1068 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1139 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1063 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1116 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1155 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1127 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1116 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1099 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Granite 3.1 2b Instruct?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.2 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better for coding?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.4 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12.