Model comparison
Granite 4.0 Micro vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Flash'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 Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.2 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 2.8% for Granite 4.0 Micro and 84.4% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper at $0.017 / $0.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.19 / $1.13 for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Granite 4.0 Micro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.8 | 38.4 |
| Released | 2025-10-02 | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 118K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.017 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.11 | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 8 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Granite 4.0 Micro: —, Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | — | 326.4 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 18.5 (#261), Qwen3.6 Flash: 28.4 (#90)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 20% |
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 77.1% |
| LMCA | — | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.26 |
Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 11.2 (#301), Qwen3.6 Flash: 38.0 (#88)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.8% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| Omni-MATH | 20.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 9.9 (#299), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.2 (#90)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 28.3% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| MMLU-Pro | 39.5% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.7% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 4.0 Micro: 70.0 (#164), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 84.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Granite 4.0 Micro: 46.7 (#212), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | 67% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.0 Micro better than Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.0 Micro or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper. It lists at $0.017 per million input tokens and $0.11 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash lists at $0.19 and $1.13.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.0 Micro and Qwen3.6 Flash share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.0 Micro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.