Olmo 3 32B Think vs Granite 4.2 30B
At a Glance
| Compare | ||
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4 | #43 of 570.0 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 0.0–66.7 | #43 of 570.0 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 0.0–66.7 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.15Openrouter ↗ · Aug 28, 2026 | $0.16Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 11, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.50Openrouter ↗ · Aug 28, 2026 | $0.65Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 11, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 66K | 131K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 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
| Benchmark | Olmo-3-32B-Think | Granite 4.2 30B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-10-15-a64ca3b12b6e · arena_rating · leader | 1,299.4295% of row best · rating · olmo-3-32b-think; 95% CI [1291.17882644, 1307.65677276]; votes 5831; rank 248 | 1,361.41100% of row best · rating · granite-4.2-30b; 95% CI [1350.97772869, 1371.83470317]; votes 3401; rank 196 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo 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 | Olmo-3-32B-Think | Granite 4.2 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Ai2 | IBM |
| Family | Olmo 3 32b Think | Granite 4 2 |
| Model | Olmo-3-32B-Think | Granite 4.2 30B |
| Version | Olmo-3-32B-Think | Granite 4.2 30B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-08-25 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 66K | 131K |
| Total parameters | 32.2B | 29.3B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Olmo 3 32B Think Capabilities
Granite 4.2 30B Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs |  DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Muse Glimmer 30BMeta | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Phi-4-mini-reasoningMicrosoft | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Codestral-22B-v0.1Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Mistral-Small-4-119B-2603Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs |  gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Olmo 3 32B Think vs Granite 4.2 30B FAQs
Is Olmo 3 32B Think or Granite 4.2 30B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Olmo 3 32B Think and Granite 4.2 30B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Olmo 3 32B Think or Granite 4.2 30B?+
Olmo 3 32B Think is $0.15 and Granite 4.2 30B is $0.16 per million tokens, so Olmo 3 32B Think is cheaper on this metric. Olmo 3 32B Think is $0.50 and Granite 4.2 30B is $0.65 per million tokens, so Olmo 3 32B Think is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Olmo 3 32B Think or Granite 4.2 30B?+
Granite 4.2 30B has the larger sourced context window. Olmo 3 32B Think supports 65,536 tokens and Granite 4.2 30B supports 131,072 tokens.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Olmo 3 32B Think or Granite 4.2 30B?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Olmo 3 32B Think or Granite 4.2 30B be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. Olmo 3 32B Think is open weight; Granite 4.2 30B is open weight.
Can Olmo 3 32B Think and Granite 4.2 30B understand images?+
Olmo 3 32B Think is not documented with image input; Granite 4.2 30B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Olmo 3 32B Think or Granite 4.2 30B?+
Olmo 3 32B Think has a sourced maximum output of 32,768 tokens; Granite 4.2 30B's maximum output is not reported. A larger limit cannot be determined.
Do Olmo 3 32B Think and Granite 4.2 30B support reasoning and tool use?+
Olmo 3 32B Think: reasoning. Granite 4.2 30B: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Olmo 3 32B Think or Granite 4.2 30B?+
Olmo 3 32B Think has 1 sourced provider route; Granite 4.2 30B has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, Olmo 3 32B Think or Granite 4.2 30B?+
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.