Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) vs Granite 4.2 30B
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Granite 4.2 30B by IBM? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 44.9 points higher (57.6 vs 12.7) but costs 79× as much to run the benchmark ($8708 vs $111; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 12.7, and Granite 4.2 30B when 12.7 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) | Granite 4.2 30B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 57.6 | 12.7 | −78.0% Granite 4.2 30B is 78.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $8,708.20 | $110.83 | −98.7% Granite 4.2 30B is 98.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 626.13s | 36.08s | −94.2% Granite 4.2 30B is 94.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.16 / $0.65 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 30B vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback): 78.0% less intelligence, 98.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 94.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Granite 4.2 30B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)Granite 4.2 30BToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5/granite-4-2-30b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5/granite-4-2-30b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill