Granite 4.2 3B vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Granite 4.2 3B | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,298.83100% of row best · rating · granite-4.2-3b; 95% CI [1287.13258156, 1310.53627273]; votes 3097; rank 233 | 1,287.1399% of row best · rating · llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct; 95% CI [1282.87677682, 1291.39199009]; votes 39349; rank 243 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 0 benchmark winsTied overall | 0 benchmark winsTied overall |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Granite 4.2 3B | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | IBM | Meta |
| Family | Granite 4 2 | Llama 4 Maverick 17b 128e Instruct |
| Model | Granite 4.2 3B | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
| Version | Granite 4.2 3B | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-08-25 | 2025-04-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 3.7B | 401.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 17B |
| License | apache-2.0 | other |
| 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 |
16 comparable fields · 11 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Granite 4.2 3B Capabilities
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct 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 Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct FAQs
Is Granite 4.2 3B or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.2 3B and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 3B or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Granite 4.2 3B is $0.030 and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.20 per million tokens, so Granite 4.2 3B is cheaper on this metric. Granite 4.2 3B is $0.12 and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.696 per million tokens, so Granite 4.2 3B is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Granite 4.2 3B or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Granite 4.2 3B supports 131K and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite 4.2 3B or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E 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 3B or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Granite 4.2 3B is open weight; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is open weight.
Can Granite 4.2 3B and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct understand images?+
Granite 4.2 3B is not documented with image input; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Granite 4.2 3B or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite 4.2 3B is — and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is —.
Do Granite 4.2 3B and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Granite 4.2 3B: reasoning and tool calling. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Granite 4.2 3B or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Granite 4.2 3B has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, Granite 4.2 3B or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E 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.