Granite 4.2 30B vs SOMA X v0.3.0
At a Glance
| Compare | SOMA X v0.3.0NVIDIA | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.16Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | Not reported |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.65Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | Not reported |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | Not reported |
| Model facts checked | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 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
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Granite 4.2 30B | SOMA-X v0.3.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | IBM | NVIDIA |
| Family | Granite 4 2 | Soma X |
| Model | Granite 4.2 30B | SOMA-X v0.3.0 |
| Version | Granite 4.2 30B | SOMA-X v0.3.0 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-08-25 | 2026-09-02 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Model-specific input |
| Output modalities | Text | 3D |
| Context window | 131K | Unknown |
| Total parameters | 29.3B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | No |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard) | Unknown |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | animation, hand-modeling, human-body-modeling, motion-retargeting, pose-inversion, simulation |
Granite 4.2 30B Capabilities
SOMA X v0.3.0 Capabilities
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Granite 4.2 30B vs SOMA X v0.3.0 FAQs
Is Granite 4.2 30B or SOMA X v0.3.0 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.2 30B and SOMA X v0.3.0, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 30B or SOMA X v0.3.0?+
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 SOMA X v0.3.0?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Granite 4.2 30B is 131K and SOMA X v0.3.0 is —.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite 4.2 30B or SOMA X v0.3.0?+
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 SOMA X v0.3.0 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Granite 4.2 30B is open weight; SOMA X v0.3.0 is open weight.
Can Granite 4.2 30B and SOMA X v0.3.0 understand images?+
Granite 4.2 30B is not documented with image input; SOMA X v0.3.0 is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Granite 4.2 30B or SOMA X v0.3.0?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite 4.2 30B is — and SOMA X v0.3.0 is —.
Do Granite 4.2 30B and SOMA X v0.3.0 support reasoning and tool use?+
Granite 4.2 30B: reasoning and tool calling. SOMA X v0.3.0: 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 SOMA X v0.3.0?+
Granite 4.2 30B has 1 sourced provider route; SOMA X v0.3.0 has 0, so Granite 4.2 30B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Granite 4.2 30B or SOMA X v0.3.0?+
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.