Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Granite 3.1 2b Instruct
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 34.3 to 24.1.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 32.6 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 32.9 (#255)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1149 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Reasoning Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 21.0 (#206)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1138 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1159 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.3 (#223)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1131 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.2 (#264)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1068 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1138 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1063 |
Instruction Following Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 58.0 (#259)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | 1116 |
Long Context Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#239)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1155 |
Writing & Preference Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.3 (#269)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1127 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | 1116 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1099 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Granite 3.1 2b Instruct?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better for coding?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.9 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12.