Granite 4.1 30B vs Llama 3.1 405B

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.1 30B and Llama 3.1 405B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Neither model has a directly sourced input price in this comparison. Neither model has a directly sourced output price in this comparison.

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Granite 4.1 30B is 131K and Llama 3.1 405B is 131K.

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Granite 4.1 30B is open weight; Llama 3.1 405B is open weight.

Granite 4.1 30B is not documented with image input; Llama 3.1 405B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite 4.1 30B is — and Llama 3.1 405B is —.

Granite 4.1 30B: tool calling. Llama 3.1 405B: none of these features are definitively sourced. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Granite 4.1 30B has 0 sourced provider routes; Llama 3.1 405B has 1, so Llama 3.1 405B has broader tracked availability.

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.