Model comparison

Granite 4.2 3b vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Granite 4.2 3b is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Granite 4.2 3b IBM

39.4

Rank #169 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.2 3b scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Granite 4.2 3b leads 40.0 to 22.6.

Side by side

Granite 4.2 3b and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Granite 4.2 3bQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderIBMAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.433.4
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1131

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: 40.0 (#151), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding13611276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Granite 4.2 3b leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 26.0 (#138), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13061251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Not comparable

Granite 4.2 3b: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LiveBench Math—46.6%
LMArena Math—1251
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Granite 4.2 3b leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 36.3 (#171), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert13151221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Granite 4.2 3b leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 42.1 (#198), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English12681205
LMArena Chinese12691222
LMArena Russian12491228

Instruction Following Granite 4.2 3b leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 67.1 (#200), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12731223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Granite 4.2 3b leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 39.2 (#185), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query12911251

Writing & Preference Granite 4.2 3b leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 47.2 (#212), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text12931230
LMArena Creative Writing12051174
LMArena Multi-Turn12901222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 4.2 3b better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Granite 4.2 3b is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 4.2 3b or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Granite 4.2 3b scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.0 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 4.2 3b and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.2 3b has 11 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper