Model comparison
Granite 4.2 30b vs Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct
Granite 4.2 30b is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.2 30b scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Granite 4.2 30b leads 47.4 to 42.8.
Side by side
| Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 38.8 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 11 | 16 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 40.4 (#127), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 38.9 (#154)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1394 | 1346 |
Reasoning Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 26.7 (#114), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 25.4 (#131)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1375 | 1322 |
Math Not comparable
Granite 4.2 30b: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 33.6 (#169)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 38.5 (#134), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 35.4 (#175)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1405 | 1307 |
Multilingual Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 47.4 (#146), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.8 (#185)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1340 | 1275 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1415 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1342 | 1268 |
| LMArena French | — | 1328 |
| LMArena German | — | 1283 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1206 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1337 |
Instruction Following Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 71.3 (#150), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.8 (#182)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1346 | 1298 |
Long Context Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 41.4 (#135), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#161)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1359 | 1312 |
Writing & Preference Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 54.3 (#147), Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.4 (#179)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1363 | 1311 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1294 | 1264 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1340 | 1309 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.2 30b better than Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct?
Granite 4.2 30b is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 4.2 30b or Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better for coding?
Granite 4.2 30b scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.2 30b and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.2 30b has 11 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16.