Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Granite 3.1 2b Instruct

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.2 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

33.2

Rank #247 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 3 categories and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 22.0 to 8.5.
  • Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
ProviderOpenAIIBM
Noometry Index27.933.2
Released2025-04-14—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3812

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

Category by category

Coding Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Coding13061149
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts12861138
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62—

Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Math12741159
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%—
Omni-MATH36.7%—
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Expert12721131
GPQA Diamond48.9%—
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Non-English12601068
LMArena Chinese12701139
LMArena Russian12611063
LMArena German1288—
LMArena Japanese1198—

Instruction Following GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following12671116
IFEval84.3%—

Long Context Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Longer Query12831155
Fiction.LiveBench25%—

Writing & Preference GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243), Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoGranite 3.1 2b Instruct
LMArena Text12851127
LMArena Creative Writing12601116
LMArena Multi-Turn12771099
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Granite 3.1 2b Instruct?

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.2 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better for coding?

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.4 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper