Granite 4.2 30B vs Bonsai 1.7B

At a Glance

Compare
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.16Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026Not reported
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.65Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026Not reported
Context windowMaximum documented tokens131K33K
Model facts checkedSep 2, 2026View model evidence →Sep 18, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldGranite 4.2 30BBonsai 1.7B
DeveloperIBMPrismML
FamilyGranite 4 2Bonsai 1 7b
ModelGranite 4.2 30BBonsai 1.7B
VersionGranite 4.2 30BBonsai 1.7B
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-08-252026-03-29
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window131K33K
Total parameters29.3B1.7B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licenseapache-2.0apache-2.0
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesNo
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard)Unknown
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, toolschat, generation
Effective bit widthUnknown1 bit per weight
Weight sizeUnknown0.25 GB
Weight formatUnknownBinary Q1_0

Granite 4.2 30B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDibm-granite/granite-4.2-30b

Bonsai 1.7B Capabilities

chatgeneration
Serving providers0
Canonical IDprism-ml/Bonsai-1.7B

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Granite 4.2 30B vs Bonsai 1.7B FAQs

Is Granite 4.2 30B or Bonsai 1.7B better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.2 30B and Bonsai 1.7B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 30B or Bonsai 1.7B?+

Only Granite 4.2 30B has a directly sourced input price: $0.16 per million tokens. Only Granite 4.2 30B has a directly sourced output price: $0.65 per million tokens.

Which has a larger context window, Granite 4.2 30B or Bonsai 1.7B?+

Granite 4.2 30B has the larger sourced context window. Granite 4.2 30B supports 131K and Bonsai 1.7B supports 33K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite 4.2 30B or Bonsai 1.7B?+

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

Can Granite 4.2 30B or Bonsai 1.7B be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Granite 4.2 30B is open weight; Bonsai 1.7B is open weight.

Can Granite 4.2 30B and Bonsai 1.7B understand images?+

Granite 4.2 30B is not documented with image input; Bonsai 1.7B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Granite 4.2 30B or Bonsai 1.7B?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite 4.2 30B is — and Bonsai 1.7B is —.

Do Granite 4.2 30B and Bonsai 1.7B support reasoning and tool use?+

Granite 4.2 30B: reasoning and tool calling. Bonsai 1.7B: none of these features are definitively sourced. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Granite 4.2 30B or Bonsai 1.7B?+

Granite 4.2 30B has 1 sourced provider route; Bonsai 1.7B has 0, so Granite 4.2 30B has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Granite 4.2 30B or Bonsai 1.7B?+

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.

Send Feedback