Model comparison

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct IBM

33.2

Rank #247 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where QwQ-32B leads 50.6 to 34.1.

Side by side

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and QwQ-32B specifications
Granite 3.1 2b InstructQwQ-32B
ProviderIBMAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index33.239.8
Released—2024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1236

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

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding11491333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts11381325
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Math11591359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert11311324
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%

Multilingual QwQ-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English10681305
LMArena Chinese11391378
LMArena Russian10631297
LMArena French—1336
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1262
LMArena Korean—1279
LMArena Spanish—1354

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following11161297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query11551308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 2b InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Text11271329
LMArena Creative Writing11161288
LMArena Multi-Turn10991314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or QwQ-32B better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and QwQ-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper