Model comparison

Granite 4.2 3b vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Granite 4.2 3b IBM

39.0

Rank #163 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.2 3b scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-Flash in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 58.2 to 47.9.
  • Granite 4.2 3b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Granite 4.2 3b and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
Granite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderIBMAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.042.3
Released—2026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked1132

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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding13631412
LMArena WebDev—1243
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Granite 4.2 3b: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 25.0 (#136), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13081404
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Not comparable

Granite 4.2 3b: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math—1407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 35.6 (#169), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert13131408
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 42.4 (#193), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English12681385
LMArena Chinese12681446
LMArena Russian12491379
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1389
LMArena Japanese—1369
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Spanish—1399

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 67.2 (#195), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following12711374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 39.3 (#179), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query12931392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Granite 4.2 3b: 47.9 (#202), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.2 3bQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text12951397
LMArena Creative Writing12151343
LMArena Multi-Turn12931393

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 4.2 3b better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 39.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 4.2 3b or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Granite 4.2 3b scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.4 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 4.2 3b and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.2 3b has 11 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper