Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Granite 4.2 30B
Which is better for the money: Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Low, 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 Sonnet 5.5 (Low, Default Fallbac… scores 23.2 points higher (35.9 vs 12.7) but costs 4.4× as much to run the benchmark ($482 vs $111; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Low, Default Fallbac… when you need intelligence above 12.7, and Granite 4.2 30B when 12.7 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) | Granite 4.2 30B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 35.9 | 12.7 | −64.6% Granite 4.2 30B is 64.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $482.13 | $110.83 | −77.0% Granite 4.2 30B is 77.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 6.19s | 36.08s | +482.9% Granite 4.2 30B is 482.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $10.0 | $0.16 / $0.65 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 30B vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback): 64.6% less intelligence, 77.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 482.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Granite 4.2 30B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Low, 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-sonnet-5-5-low/granite-4-2-30b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-5-low/granite-4-2-30b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill