Model comparison

Gemma 2B vs Granite 3.1 8b Instruct

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2B Google

29.6

Rank #307 Confirmed

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct IBM

32.4

Rank #258 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 0 categories and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads 35.5 to 24.0.

Side by side

Gemma 2B and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct specifications
Gemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
ProviderGoogleIBM
Noometry Index29.632.4
Released2024-02-21—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked2313

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

Category by category

Coding Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 34.5 (#233)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Coding10101186
HumanEval+20.7%—
MBPP+34.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 24.1 (#120)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—27.1%

Reasoning Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 22.1 (#207)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts9891145
BIG-Bench Hard35.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index94.2—
HellaSwag71.4%—
PIQA77.3%—
WinoGrande65.4%—

Math Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 33.0 (#209)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Math10091152
GSM8K17.7%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Gemma 2B: —, Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 31.1 (#220)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Expert—1142
ARC (AI2) Challenge42.1%—
BoolQ69.4%—
MMLU42.3%—
TriviaQA53.2%—

Multilingual Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 30.9 (#260)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Non-English9581099
LMArena Chinese9861145
LMArena Russian9371092

Instruction Following Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 58.6 (#259)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following9701131

Long Context Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.2 (#241)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query9811162

Writing & Preference Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads

Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.5 (#266)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGemma 2BGranite 3.1 8b Instruct
LMArena Text10021150
LMArena Creative Writing9871129
LMArena Multi-Turn9451108

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2B better than Granite 3.1 8b Instruct?

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemma 2B or Granite 3.1 8b Instruct better for coding?

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.5 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper