Model comparison
Granite 4.0 Micro vs Mistral Small 3.2
Mistral Small 3.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.2 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Mistral Small 3.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.0 Micro scores higher in 2 categories and Mistral Small 3.2 in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Mistral Small 3.2 leads 26.7 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 2.8% for Granite 4.0 Micro and 30.3% for Mistral Small 3.2.
- Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper at $0.017 / $0.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.0938 / $0.25 for Mistral Small 3.2.
- Mistral Small 3.2 accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Granite 4.0 Micro | Mistral Small 3.2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 29.0 | 31.2 |
| Released | 2025-10-02 | 2025-06-20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 256K |
| Max output | 118K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.017 | $0.0938 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.11 | $0.25 |
| Results tracked | 8 | 6 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Reasoning Granite 4.0 Micro leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 19.2 (#265), Mistral Small 3.2: 18.1 (#287)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Mistral Small 3.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 40.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 131.74 |
Math Mistral Small 3.2 leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 12.0 (#307), Mistral Small 3.2: 26.3 (#260)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Mistral Small 3.2 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.8% | 30.3% |
| Omni-MATH | 20.9% | — |
Knowledge Mistral Small 3.2 leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 9.9 (#304), Mistral Small 3.2: 26.7 (#256)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Mistral Small 3.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 28.3% | 49.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | 39.5% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.7% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 4.0 Micro: 69.9 (#169), Mistral Small 3.2: —
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Mistral Small 3.2 |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 84.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Granite 4.0 Micro leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 46.7 (#216), Mistral Small 3.2: 45.0 (#224)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Mistral Small 3.2 |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1255 |
| WildBench | 67% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.0 Micro better than Mistral Small 3.2?
Mistral Small 3.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.2 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Mistral Small 3.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.0 Micro or Mistral Small 3.2?
Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper. It lists at $0.017 per million input tokens and $0.11 per million output tokens; Mistral Small 3.2 lists at $0.0938 and $0.25.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mistral Small 3.2 does, with 256K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.0 Micro and Mistral Small 3.2 share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.0 Micro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Small 3.2 has 6.