Model comparison
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Qwen3 8B
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen3 8B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.2 vs 33.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 22.0 to 16.6.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.2 | 33.7 |
| Released | — | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.18 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 12 | 11 |
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), Qwen3 8B: 34.0 (#248)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 22.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —, Qwen3 8B: 30.2 (#78)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 42.6% |
Reasoning Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), Qwen3 8B: 16.6 (#303)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | — |
| DTBench | — | 59.7% |
| LMCA | — | 8.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 136.17 |
Math Qwen3 8B leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), Qwen3 8B: 34.9 (#191)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 56.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1159 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 8B leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#173)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 56.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 4.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1139 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | — |
Long Context Qwen3 8B leads
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), Qwen3 8B: 37.9 (#210)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.1% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), Qwen3 8B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Qwen3 8B?
Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen3 8B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (33.2 vs 33.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Qwen3 8B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (33.4 vs 34.0); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Qwen3 8B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.