Model comparison
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 30.6 to 11.8.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.6 | 28.6 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 32.9 (#255), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 21.0 (#206), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | — |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.44 |
Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.6 (#206), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1159 | — |
Knowledge Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.3 (#223), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | — |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.2 (#264), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1138 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 58.0 (#259), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#239), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.3 (#269), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.