# Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs Llama 3.2 3B

> Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/granite-3-1-2b-instruct-vs-llama-3-2-3b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Granite 3.1 2b Instruct leads 34.3 to 24.9.

## Snapshot

| | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 32.6 | 28.4 |
| Rank | 243 | 318 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.05 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.33 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 32.9 (#255)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | 1098 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 23.4% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 28.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —
- Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| BALROG | — | 10.1% |

## Reasoning

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 21.0 (#206)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | 1095 |

## Math

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.6 (#206)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1159 | 1126 |

## Knowledge

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.3 (#223)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | 1090 |

## Multilingual

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.2 (#264)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1138 | 1017 |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | 949 |
| LMArena German | — | 1056 |

## Instruction Following

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 58.0 (#259)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1089 |

## Long Context

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#239)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | 1101 |

## Writing & Preference

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.3 (#269)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | 1094 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | 1105 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 595 |

## FAQ

### Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than Llama 3.2 3B?

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.6 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?

Granite 3.1 2b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.9 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and Llama 3.2 3B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.