DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) vs Granite 4.2 3B
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) by DeepSeek or Granite 4.2 3B by IBM? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) scores 2.3 points higher (11.4 vs 9.1) but costs 31× as much to run the benchmark ($461 vs $14.9; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) when you need intelligence above 9.1, and Granite 4.2 3B when 9.1 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) | Granite 4.2 3B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 11.4 | 9.1 | −20.2% Granite 4.2 3B is 20.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $460.74 | $14.91 | −96.8% Granite 4.2 3B is 96.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 19.94s | 55.67s | +179.2% Granite 4.2 3B is 179.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $4.00 | $0.03 / $0.12 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Granite 4.2 3B vs DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25): 20.2% less intelligence, 96.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 179.2% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Granite 4.2 3B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25)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/deepseek-r1-0120/granite-4-2-3b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-r1-0120/granite-4-2-3b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill