Granite 4.2 3B vs Granite Vision 4.1 4B
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Granite 4.2 3B | granite-vision-4.1-4b |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | IBM | IBM |
| Family | Granite 4 2 | Granite Vision 4 1 4b |
| Model | Granite 4.2 3B | granite-vision-4.1-4b |
| Version | Granite 4.2 3B | granite-vision-4.1-4b |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-08-25 | 2026-04-29 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 131K |
| Total parameters | 3.7B | 4B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Unknown |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard) | Unknown |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, tools |
14 comparable fields · 7 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Granite 4.2 3B Capabilities
Granite Vision 4.1 4B Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related 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-ProDeepSeek | 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 3B vs Granite Vision 4.1 4B FAQs
Is Granite 4.2 3B or Granite Vision 4.1 4B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.2 3B and Granite Vision 4.1 4B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 3B or Granite Vision 4.1 4B?+
Only Granite 4.2 3B has a directly sourced input price: $0.030 per million tokens. Only Granite 4.2 3B has a directly sourced output price: $0.12 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Granite 4.2 3B or Granite Vision 4.1 4B?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Granite 4.2 3B is 131K and Granite Vision 4.1 4B is 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite 4.2 3B or Granite Vision 4.1 4B?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Granite 4.2 3B or Granite Vision 4.1 4B be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Granite 4.2 3B is open weight; Granite Vision 4.1 4B is open weight.
Can Granite 4.2 3B and Granite Vision 4.1 4B understand images?+
Granite 4.2 3B is not documented with image input; Granite Vision 4.1 4B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Granite 4.2 3B or Granite Vision 4.1 4B?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite 4.2 3B is — and Granite Vision 4.1 4B is —.
Do Granite 4.2 3B and Granite Vision 4.1 4B support reasoning and tool use?+
Granite 4.2 3B: reasoning and tool calling. Granite Vision 4.1 4B: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Granite 4.2 3B or Granite Vision 4.1 4B?+
Granite 4.2 3B has 1 sourced provider route; Granite Vision 4.1 4B has 0, so Granite 4.2 3B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Granite 4.2 3B or Granite Vision 4.1 4B?+
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.