Model comparison
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo
Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads 60.0 to 34.1.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Moonshot AI |
| Noometry Index | 33.2 | 45.8 |
| Released | — | 2025-11-06 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.4 (#178)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | 1454 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1322 |
Reasoning Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 32.5 (#75)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | 1428 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
Math Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 47.4 (#68)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1159 | 1429 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 83.1% |
Knowledge Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#69)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | 1439 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.2% |
Multilingual Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.4 (#109)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | 1398 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1139 | 1456 |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | 1391 |
| LMArena French | — | 1425 |
| LMArena German | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1357 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1330 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1406 |
Instruction Following Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1403 |
Long Context Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#102)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | 1415 |
Writing & Preference Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.0 (#104)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | 1415 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | 1374 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | 1414 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo?
Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better for coding?
Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.4 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21.