Model comparison
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#258); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Side by side
| Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | — |
| Released | — | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 6 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 34.5 (#233), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1186 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 24.1 (#120), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 27.1% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 22.1 (#207), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1145 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.14 |
| HellaSwag | — | 76.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 72.9% |
Math Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 33.0 (#209), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1152 | — |
| GSM8K | — | 86.7% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 31.1 (#220), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1142 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 60.9% |
| MMLU | — | 68% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 30.9 (#260), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1099 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1145 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1092 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 58.6 (#259), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1131 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.2 (#241), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1162 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.5 (#266), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1150 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1129 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1108 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 8b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)?
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#258); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 8b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) has 6.