Model comparison
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct vs StarCoder 2 15B
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#256); StarCoder 2 15B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
NVIDIASide by side
| Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | NVIDIA |
| Noometry Index | 31.8 | 37.5 |
| Released | — | 2024-02-20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding StarCoder 2 15B leads
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 33.9 (#232), StarCoder 2 15B: 36.0
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1186 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 38.4% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 37.8% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 23.9 (#113), StarCoder 2 15B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 27.1% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 21.2 (#204), StarCoder 2 15B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1146 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 104.61 |
| WinoGrande | — | 64.3% |
Math Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 30.4 (#210), StarCoder 2 15B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1152 | — |
| GSM8K | — | 57.7% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 30.6 (#218), StarCoder 2 15B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1142 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 47.2% |
| MMLU | — | 64.1% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 31.1 (#255), StarCoder 2 15B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1099 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1145 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1092 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 58.9 (#254), StarCoder 2 15B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1131 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.2 (#236), StarCoder 2 15B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1162 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct: 35.7 (#261), StarCoder 2 15B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 8b Instruct | StarCoder 2 15B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1150 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1129 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1108 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 3.1 8b Instruct better than StarCoder 2 15B?
Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#256); StarCoder 2 15B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Granite 3.1 8b Instruct or StarCoder 2 15B better for coding?
StarCoder 2 15B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.0 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 8b Instruct and StarCoder 2 15B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 8b Instruct has 13 scored results on Noometry and StarCoder 2 15B has 7.