Noometry

Model comparison

Granite 4.2 8B vs Llama 3.1-70B

Granite 4.2 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Granite 4.2 8B IBM

40.5

Rank #148 Confirmed

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.6

Rank #308 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.2 8B scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 3.1-70B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Granite 4.2 8B leads 38.4 to 24.2.
  • Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.25 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $0.40 for Llama 3.1-70B.
  • Granite 4.2 8B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Granite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
ProviderIBMMeta
Noometry Index40.529.6
Released—2024-07-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K128K
Max output118K4K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.25$0.40
Results tracked1135

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 40.5 (#137), Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Coding13801260
WeirdML—9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—46.1%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.8%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Granite 4.2 8B: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
TheAgentCompany—6.9%
BALROG—27.9%

Reasoning Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 26.6 (#131), Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Hard Prompts13291241
DTBench—60%
LMCA—14.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—125.92

Math Not comparable

Granite 4.2 8B: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—3.6%
Omni-MATH—21%
LMArena Math—1252
MATH Level 5—36.7%

Knowledge Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 38.4 (#145), Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Expert13841209
GPQA Diamond—44.2%
MMLU-Pro—65.3%
GPQA (HELM)—42.6%
MMLU—80.1%

Multilingual Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 44.5 (#178), Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Non-English13021219
LMArena Chinese13661215
LMArena Russian12851234
LMArena French—1261
LMArena German—1222
LMArena Japanese—1132
LMArena Korean—1140
LMArena Spanish—1253

Instruction Following Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 68.7 (#184), Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Instruction Following13011231
IFEval—82.1%

Long Context Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 40.3 (#159), Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Longer Query13241241

Writing & Preference Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 49.6 (#189), Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267)

BenchmarkGranite 4.2 8BLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Text13201261
LMArena Creative Writing12361232
LMArena Multi-Turn13011256
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—784
WildBench—75.8%

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 4.2 8B better than Llama 3.1-70B?

Granite 4.2 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 8B or Llama 3.1-70B?

Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.25 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1-70B lists at $0.40 and $0.40.

Is Granite 4.2 8B or Llama 3.1-70B better for coding?

Granite 4.2 8B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.5 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Granite 4.2 8B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Granite 4.2 8B and Llama 3.1-70B share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.2 8B has 11 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-70B has 35.

Related comparisons

Go deeper