Model comparison
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 30.8.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.2 | 42.2 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1159 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1139 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.