Model comparison

Granite 4.0 H Small vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Granite 4.0 H Small is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Granite 4.0 H Small IBM

35.9

Rank #213 Confirmed

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

32.9

Rank #239 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.0 H Small scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Granite 4.0 H Small leads 35.8 to 22.4.

Side by side

Granite 4.0 H Small and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Granite 4.0 H SmallQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderIBMAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index35.932.9
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1931

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

Category by category

Coding Granite 4.0 H Small leads

Granite 4.0 H Small: 35.8 (#207), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 H SmallQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding12471276
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 4.0 H Small leads

Granite 4.0 H Small: 23.4 (#164), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 H SmallQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts12401251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.41
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 4.0 H Small: 29.3 (#219), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 H SmallQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math12511251
Omni-MATH29.6%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Granite 4.0 H Small: 31.5 (#210), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 H SmallQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert12441221
MMLU-Pro56.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.2%—
GPQA (HELM)38.3%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Too close to call

Granite 4.0 H Small: 38.7 (#223), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 H SmallQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English12161205
LMArena Chinese12501222
LMArena Russian11981228
LMArena Spanish1258—

Instruction Following Granite 4.0 H Small leads

Granite 4.0 H Small: 68.9 (#178), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 H SmallQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12211223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%
IFEval89%—

Long Context Too close to call

Granite 4.0 H Small: 37.6 (#209), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 H SmallQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query12401251

Writing & Preference Granite 4.0 H Small leads

Granite 4.0 H Small: 44.0 (#222), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 H SmallQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text12411230
LMArena Creative Writing12101174
LMArena Multi-Turn12431222
WildBench73.9%—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 4.0 H Small better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Granite 4.0 H Small is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Granite 4.0 H Small or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Granite 4.0 H Small scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Granite 4.0 H Small and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.0 H Small has 19 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper