Model comparison
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 8b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where QwQ-32B leads 50.6 to 35.5.
Side by side
| Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 39.8 |
| Released | — | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 34.5 (#233), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1186 | 1333 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 24.1 (#120), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 27.1% | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 22.1 (#207), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1145 | 1325 |
| 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 8b Instruct: 33.0 (#209), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1152 | 1359 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 31.1 (#220), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1142 | 1324 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multilingual QwQ-32B leads
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 30.9 (#260), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1099 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1145 | 1378 |
| LMArena Russian | 1092 | 1297 |
| LMArena French | — | 1336 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1354 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 58.6 (#259), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1131 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.2 (#241), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1162 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.5 (#266), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1150 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1129 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1108 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 8b Instruct better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 3.1 8b Instruct or QwQ-32B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (34.5 vs 35.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 8b Instruct and QwQ-32B share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has 13 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.