Model comparison
Granite 4.0 Micro vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.1 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 30× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 32B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.0 Micro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 3 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads 24.9 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 28.3% for Granite 4.0 Micro and 46.1% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper at $0.017 / $0.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.0 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2025-10-02 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 131K |
| Max output | 118K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.017 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.11 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 8 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Granite 4.0 Micro: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Granite 4.0 Micro: 19.2 (#265), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 12.0 (#307), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.8% | 7.4% |
| Omni-MATH | 20.9% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 9.9 (#304), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 28.3% | 46.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | 39.5% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.7% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 4.0 Micro: 69.9 (#169), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 84.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Granite 4.0 Micro: 46.7 (#216), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | 67% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.0 Micro better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.1 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 30× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 32B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.0 Micro or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper. It lists at $0.017 per million input tokens and $0.11 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.0 Micro and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.0 Micro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.