Model comparison
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Mixtral 8x7B
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.2 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 6 categories and Mixtral 8x7B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 30.8 to 11.0.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mixtral 8x7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 33.2 | 27.1 |
| Released | — | 2023-12-11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 32K |
| Max output | — | 32K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 38 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), Mixtral 8x7B: 32.8 (#269)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mixtral 8x7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | 1126 |
| HumanEval+ | — | 39.6% |
| MBPP+ | — | 49.7% |
Reasoning Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), Mixtral 8x7B: 18.2 (#285)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mixtral 8x7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | 1115 |
| DTBench | — | 49.6% |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.47 |
| ForecastBench | — | 56.3 |
| HellaSwag | — | 86.7% |
| PIQA | — | 83.6% |
| WinoGrande | — | 77.2% |
Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), Mixtral 8x7B: 18.8 (#289)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mixtral 8x7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1159 | 1147 |
| Omni-MATH | — | 10.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 10% |
| GSM8K | — | 74.4% |
Knowledge Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), Mixtral 8x7B: 11.0 (#301)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mixtral 8x7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | 1088 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 33.5% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 29.6% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 87.3% |
| MMLU | — | 70.6% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 85.8% |
| TriviaQA | — | 82.2% |
Multilingual Too close to call
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), Mixtral 8x7B: 29.6 (#266)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mixtral 8x7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | 1077 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1139 | 1055 |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | 1090 |
| LMArena French | — | 1166 |
| LMArena German | — | 1114 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 931 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 968 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1111 |
Instruction Following Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), Mixtral 8x7B: 51.0 (#297)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mixtral 8x7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1109 |
| IFEval | — | 57.5% |
Long Context Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), Mixtral 8x7B: 33.4 (#260)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mixtral 8x7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | 1103 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), Mixtral 8x7B: 34.2 (#270)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Mixtral 8x7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | 1132 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | 1109 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | 1115 |
| WildBench | — | 67.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Mixtral 8x7B?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.2 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Mixtral 8x7B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (33.4 vs 32.8); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Mixtral 8x7B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Mixtral 8x7B has 38.