Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Granite 3.0 2b Instruct

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct IBM

30.8

Rank #286 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 3 categories and Granite 3.0 2b Instruct in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where GPT-4.1 nano leads 41.6 to 27.0.
  • Granite 3.0 2b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
ProviderOpenAIIBM
Noometry Index27.930.8
Released2025-04-14—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3813

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

Category by category

Coding Granite 3.0 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 28.3 (#316)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Coding13061090
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—20.5%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Granite 3.0 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 20.5 (#235)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts12861073
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62—

Math Granite 3.0 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 32.2 (#217)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Math12741117
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%—
Omni-MATH36.7%—
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge Granite 3.0 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 29.0 (#241)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Expert12721064
GPQA Diamond48.9%—
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 27.0 (#278)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Non-English12601033
LMArena Chinese12701070
LMArena Russian12611045
LMArena German1288—
LMArena Japanese1198—

Instruction Following GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 53.9 (#284)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following12671056
IFEval84.3%—

Long Context Granite 3.0 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 32.5 (#268)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query12831070
Fiction.LiveBench25%—

Writing & Preference GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243), Granite 3.0 2b Instruct: 29.6 (#292)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.0 2b Instruct
LMArena Text12851080
LMArena Creative Writing12601046
LMArena Multi-Turn12771053
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Granite 3.0 2b Instruct?

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or Granite 3.0 2b Instruct better for coding?

Granite 3.0 2b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 28.3 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Granite 3.0 2b Instruct share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.0 2b Instruct has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper