Granite 4.2 30B vs pi 0.7

At a Glance

Compare
pi 0.7Physical Intelligence
Pricing and Limits
Context windowMaximum documented tokens131KNot reported
Model facts checkedSep 2, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 2026View model evidence →
Different Model RolesThese models do not share a sourced market category. Their primary-source facts remain comparable below, while performance claims require matched evidence.

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 30Bpi 0.7
DeveloperIBMPhysical Intelligence
FamilyGranite 4 2pi
ModelGranite 4.2 30Bpi 0.7
VersionGranite 4.2 30B0.7
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-08-252026-04-16
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText, Image, Robot state
Output modalitiesTextRobot action
Context window131KUnknown
Total parameters29.3BUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licenseapache-2.0Unknown
Open weightsYesNo
API availableYesUnknown
Self-hostableYesUnknown
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard)Unknown
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, toolscross-embodiment, dexterous-manipulation, language-steering, visual-subgoals
Robotics model typeUnknownVision-language-action model
Action representationUnknownContinuous robot actions conditioned by multimodal prompts
Control architectureUnknownHigh-level policy, world model, and action expert
Inference locationUnknownUnknown
Native control rate (Hz)UnknownUnknown
Supported embodimentsUnknownmobile manipulators, bimanual UR5e, multiple fixed manipulators
Training dataUnknownRobot demonstrations, autonomous data, egocentric human data, and multimodal web data described by the publisher.

Granite 4.2 30B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Model typeUnknown
InferenceUnknown
Action representationUnknown
Supported embodimentsUnknown
Canonical IDibm-granite/granite-4.2-30b

pi 0.7 Capabilities

cross-embodimentdexterous-manipulationlanguage-steeringvisual-subgoals
Model typeVision-language-action model
InferenceUnknown
Action representationContinuous robot actions conditioned by multimodal prompts
Supported embodiments3
Canonical IDphysical-intelligence/pi-0.7

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Granite 4.2 30B vs pi 0.7 FAQs

Is Granite 4.2 30B or pi 0.7 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.2 30B and pi 0.7, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 30B or pi 0.7?+

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 pi 0.7?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Granite 4.2 30B is 131K and pi 0.7 is —.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite 4.2 30B or pi 0.7?+

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 pi 0.7 be self-hosted?+

Granite 4.2 30B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Granite 4.2 30B is open weight; pi 0.7 is not marked open weight.

Can Granite 4.2 30B and pi 0.7 understand images?+

Granite 4.2 30B is not documented with image input; pi 0.7 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Granite 4.2 30B or pi 0.7?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite 4.2 30B is — and pi 0.7 is —.

Do Granite 4.2 30B and pi 0.7 support reasoning and tool use?+

Granite 4.2 30B: reasoning and tool calling. pi 0.7: image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Granite 4.2 30B or pi 0.7?+

Granite 4.2 30B has 1 sourced provider route; pi 0.7 has 0, so Granite 4.2 30B has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Granite 4.2 30B or pi 0.7?+

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