Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 75.1 to 34.1.
- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | IBM |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 33.2 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 66 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | 1149 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | 1138 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1159 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1131 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | 1068 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | 1139 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1063 |
| LMArena French | 1503 | — |
| LMArena German | 1495 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1116 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1155 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1127 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1116 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1099 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Granite 3.1 2b Instruct?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12.