# Granite 3.1 2b Instruct vs MiMo-V2.5

> MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/granite-3-1-2b-instruct-vs-mimo-v2-5
- 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 0 categories and MiMo-V2.5 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.5 leads 61.6 to 34.1.

## Snapshot

| | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Xiaomi |
| Noometry Index | 33.2 | 43.4 |
| Rank | 247 | 93 |
| Context | — | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | — | $0.14 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.4 (#257)
- MiMo-V2.5: 43.9 (#81)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1149 | 1469 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1438 |
| SciCode | — | 43.1% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 513.95 |

## Reasoning

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 22.0 (#209)
- MiMo-V2.5: 28.6 (#101)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1138 | 1450 |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |

## Math

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 33.1 (#206)
- MiMo-V2.5: 36.8 (#163)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1159 | 1436 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |

## Knowledge

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 30.8 (#224)
- MiMo-V2.5: 40.8 (#115)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1131 | 1460 |

## Multimodal

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: —
- MiMo-V2.5: 39.8 (#54)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1247 |

## Multilingual

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 29.1 (#269)
- MiMo-V2.5: 51.9 (#99)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1068 | 1404 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1139 | 1468 |
| LMArena Russian | 1063 | 1395 |
| LMArena French | — | 1447 |
| LMArena German | — | 1421 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1306 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1363 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1416 |

## Instruction Following

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 57.7 (#264)
- MiMo-V2.5: 75.5 (#60)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1434 |

## Long Context

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 35.0 (#244)
- MiMo-V2.5: 44.2 (#73)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1155 | 1445 |

## Writing & Preference

- Granite 3.1 2b Instruct: 34.1 (#274)
- MiMo-V2.5: 61.6 (#86)

| Benchmark | Granite 3.1 2b Instruct | MiMo-V2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1127 | 1428 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1116 | 1393 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1099 | 1445 |

## FAQ

### Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct better than MiMo-V2.5?

MiMo-V2.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.4 to 33.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Granite 3.1 2b Instruct or MiMo-V2.5 better for coding?

MiMo-V2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.9 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Granite 3.1 2b Instruct and MiMo-V2.5 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 3.1 2b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.5 has 23.