# Granite 4.0 Micro vs Qwen3.6 Flash

> Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/granite-4-0-micro-vs-qwen3-6-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.0 Micro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.1 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 2.8% for Granite 4.0 Micro and 84.4% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper at $0.017 / $0.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.19 / $1.13 for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Granite 4.0 Micro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.0 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 318 | 182 |
| Context | 131K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.017 | $0.19 |
| Output $/M | $0.11 | $1.13 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Granite 4.0 Micro: —
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | — | 326.4 |

## Reasoning

- Granite 4.0 Micro: 19.2 (#265)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 20% |
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 77.1% |
| LMCA | — | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.26 |

## Math

- Granite 4.0 Micro: 12.0 (#307)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.8% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| Omni-MATH | 20.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Granite 4.0 Micro: 9.9 (#304)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 28.3% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| MMLU-Pro | 39.5% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.7% | — |

## Instruction Following

- Granite 4.0 Micro: 69.9 (#169)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 84.9% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Granite 4.0 Micro: 46.7 (#216)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | 67% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Granite 4.0 Micro better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Granite 4.0 Micro or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper. It lists at $0.017 per million input tokens and $0.11 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash lists at $0.19 and $1.13.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do Granite 4.0 Micro and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.0 Micro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.