Model comparison

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct IBM

32.4

Rank #258 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 8b Instruct scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads 34.5 to 22.6.

Side by side

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Granite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderIBMAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.433.4
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1331

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

Category by category

Coding Granite 3.1 8b Instruct leads

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 34.5 (#233), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding11861276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 24.1 (#120), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard27.1%—

Reasoning Too close to call

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 22.1 (#207), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts11451251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Too close to call

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 33.0 (#209), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math11521251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 31.1 (#220), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert11421221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 30.9 (#260), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English10991205
LMArena Chinese11451222
LMArena Russian10921228

Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 58.6 (#259), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following11311223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.2 (#241), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query11621251

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.5 (#266), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 3.1 8b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text11501230
LMArena Creative Writing11291174
LMArena Multi-Turn11081222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 3.1 8b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 3.1 8b Instruct or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Granite 3.1 8b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.5 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 8b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper