Claude Opus 5 (Max) vs Granite 4.2 3B
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (Max) by Anthropic or Granite 4.2 3B by IBM? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5 (Max) scores 41.7 points higher (50.8 vs 9.1) but costs 488× as much to run the benchmark ($7275 vs $14.9; flagship vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5 (Max) when you need intelligence above 9.1, and Granite 4.2 3B when 9.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (Max) | Granite 4.2 3B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 50.8 | 9.1 | −82.1% Granite 4.2 3B is 82.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $7,274.74 | $14.91 | −99.8% Granite 4.2 3B is 99.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 59.61s | 49.42s | −17.1% Granite 4.2 3B is 17.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $0.03 / $0.12 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 3B vs Claude Opus 5 (Max): 82.1% less intelligence, 99.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 17.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- Granite 4.2 3B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
Claude Opus 5 (Max)Granite 4.2 3BToday'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/granite-4-2-3b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5/granite-4-2-3b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill