Model comparison
Granite 4.1 8b vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 36.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.1 8b scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 6 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 37.9 to 29.9.
- Granite 4.1 8b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Granite 4.1 8b | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 36.8 | 38.1 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Granite 4.1 8b: 29.9 (#291), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 37.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1313 | 1314 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1190 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 24.6 (#142), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 24.8 (#139)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1294 | 1299 |
Math Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 33.8 (#167), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 33.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1311 | 1298 |
Knowledge Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 35.5 (#171), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 34.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1310 | 1289 |
Multilingual Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 41.8 (#199), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 42.1 (#196)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1261 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1335 | 1314 |
| LMArena Russian | 1238 | 1271 |
| LMArena German | — | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1207 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 67.0 (#198), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.4 (#194)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1268 | 1275 |
Long Context Too close to call
Granite 4.1 8b: 38.7 (#188), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#180)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1275 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Granite 4.1 8b: 48.3 (#199), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.5 (#186)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.1 8b | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1291 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1249 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1269 | 1299 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.1 8b better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 36.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 4.1 8b or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.9 versus 29.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.1 8b and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.1 8b has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.