Model comparison
Granite 4.2 30b vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Granite 4.2 30b is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 37.3 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 Think 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 38.3.
Side by side
| Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 37.3 |
| Released | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 11 | 15 |
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 Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1394 | 1292 |
Reasoning Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 26.7 (#114), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1375 | 1272 |
Math Not comparable
Granite 4.2 30b: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 38.5 (#134), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1405 | 1294 |
Multilingual Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 47.4 (#146), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1340 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1415 | 1241 |
| LMArena Russian | 1342 | 1193 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |
Instruction Following Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 71.3 (#150), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1346 | 1246 |
Long Context Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 41.4 (#135), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1359 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Granite 4.2 30b leads
Granite 4.2 30b: 54.3 (#147), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1363 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1294 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1340 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.2 30b better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Granite 4.2 30b is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 4.2 30b or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Granite 4.2 30b scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.2 30b and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.2 30b has 11 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.