Model comparison

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Qwen2-72B

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

32.6

Rank #243 Confirmed

Qwen2-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

29.5

Rank #294 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2-72B in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 30.3 to 21.2.

Side by side

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen2-72B specifications
Granite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
ProviderIBMAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.629.5
Released—2024-06-07
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1226

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

Category by category

Coding Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 32.9 (#255), Qwen2-72B: 28.7 (#303)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Coding11491196
WeirdML—11.3%
BigCodeBench Instruct—38.5%
BigCodeBench Complete—54%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —, Qwen2-72B: 16.9 (#138)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
TheAgentCompany—1.1%
METR Time Horizons—29.9%

Reasoning Qwen2-72B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 21.0 (#206), Qwen2-72B: 22.2 (#184)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts11381191
Epoch Capabilities Index—125.27

Math Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.6 (#206), Qwen2-72B: 27.9 (#232)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Math11591235
MATH Level 5—39.1%

Knowledge Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.3 (#223), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#270)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Expert11311171
GPQA Diamond—40.8%
MMLU—82.4%

Multilingual Qwen2-72B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.2 (#264), Qwen2-72B: 36.0 (#239)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Non-English10681176
LMArena Chinese11381240
LMArena Russian10631169
LMArena French—1169
LMArena German—1151
LMArena Japanese—1111
LMArena Korean—1083
LMArena Spanish—1168

Instruction Following Qwen2-72B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 58.0 (#259), Qwen2-72B: 62.0 (#236)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Instruction Following11161181

Long Context Qwen2-72B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#239), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#230)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Longer Query11551193

Writing & Preference Qwen2-72B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.3 (#269), Qwen2-72B: 41.0 (#236)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwen2-72B
LMArena Text11271203
LMArena Creative Writing11161181
LMArena Multi-Turn10991195

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Qwen2-72B?

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.9 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen2-72B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper