Model comparison
Granite 4.2 3b vs Olmo 3.1 32b Think
Granite 4.2 3b is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.0 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 3b scores higher in 7 categories and Olmo 3.1 32b Think in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Granite 4.2 3b leads 42.4 to 38.3.
Side by side
| Granite 4.2 3b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) |
| Noometry Index | 39.0 | 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 3b leads
Granite 4.2 3b: 39.4 (#146), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 37.1 (#186)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 3b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1363 | 1292 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Granite 4.2 3b: 25.0 (#136), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 3b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1308 | 1272 |
Math Not comparable
Granite 4.2 3b: —, Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 3b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1305 |
Knowledge Too close to call
Granite 4.2 3b: 35.6 (#169), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 3b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1313 | 1294 |
Multilingual Granite 4.2 3b leads
Granite 4.2 3b: 42.4 (#193), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 3b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1268 | 1210 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1268 | 1241 |
| LMArena Russian | 1249 | 1193 |
| LMArena French | — | 1262 |
| LMArena German | — | 1260 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1288 |
Instruction Following Granite 4.2 3b leads
Granite 4.2 3b: 67.2 (#195), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 3b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1271 | 1246 |
Long Context Too close to call
Granite 4.2 3b: 39.3 (#179), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 3b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1293 | 1272 |
Writing & Preference Granite 4.2 3b leads
Granite 4.2 3b: 47.9 (#202), Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 3b | Olmo 3.1 32b Think |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1295 | 1271 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1215 | 1226 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1293 | 1252 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.2 3b better than Olmo 3.1 32b Think?
Granite 4.2 3b is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.0 to 37.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Granite 4.2 3b or Olmo 3.1 32b Think better for coding?
Granite 4.2 3b scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.4 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.2 3b and Olmo 3.1 32b Think share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.2 3b has 11 scored results on Noometry and Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15.