Claude Sonnet 5 (Low) vs Granite 4.2 3B
Which is better for the money: Claude Sonnet 5 (Low) 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 Sonnet 5 (Low) scores 15.2 points higher (24.3 vs 9.1) but costs 44× as much to run the benchmark ($653 vs $14.9; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Sonnet 5 (Low) when you need intelligence above 9.1, and Granite 4.2 3B when 9.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 (Low) | Granite 4.2 3B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.3 | 9.1 | −62.6% Granite 4.2 3B is 62.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $652.70 | $14.91 | −97.7% Granite 4.2 3B is 97.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 8.46s | 49.98s | +490.8% Granite 4.2 3B is 490.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $10.0 | $0.03 / $0.12 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 3B vs Claude Sonnet 5 (Low): 62.6% less intelligence, 97.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 490.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Sonnet 5 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
- 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 Sonnet 5 (Low)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-sonnet-5-low/granite-4-2-3b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-low/granite-4-2-3b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill