Granite 4.2 30B vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.16Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.65Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 131K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 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
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 30B | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,363.28100% of row best · rating · granite-4.2-30b; 95% CI [1352.63422000, 1373.93564272]; votes 3255; rank 181 | 1,260.8192% of row best · rating · llama-3.1-70b-instruct; 95% CI [1257.09857551, 1264.52491700]; votes 55240; rank 276 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Granite 4.2 30B | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | IBM | Meta |
| Family | Granite 4 2 | Llama 3 1 70b Instruct |
| Model | Granite 4.2 30B | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
| Version | Granite 4.2 30B | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-08-25 | 2024-07-23 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 131K |
| Total parameters | 29.3B | 70.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | llama3.1 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard) | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, tools |
Granite 4.2 30B Capabilities
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Granite 4.2 30B vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct FAQs
Is Granite 4.2 30B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.2 30B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 30B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Granite 4.2 30B is $0.16 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is $0.40 per million tokens, so Granite 4.2 30B is cheaper on this metric. Granite 4.2 30B is $0.65 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is $0.40 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Granite 4.2 30B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Granite 4.2 30B is 131K and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite 4.2 30B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Granite 4.2 30B is open weight; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is open weight.
Can Granite 4.2 30B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct understand images?+
Granite 4.2 30B is not documented with image input; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Granite 4.2 30B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite 4.2 30B is — and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is —.
Do Granite 4.2 30B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Granite 4.2 30B: reasoning and tool calling. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct: tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Granite 4.2 30B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Granite 4.2 30B has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, Granite 4.2 30B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
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.