GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) vs Granite 4.2 30B
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) by OpenAI or Granite 4.2 30B 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
GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) scores 25.7 points higher (38.4 vs 12.7) but costs 48× as much to run the benchmark ($5294 vs $111; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 12.7, and Granite 4.2 30B when 12.7 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) | Granite 4.2 30B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 38.4 | 12.7 | −66.9% Granite 4.2 30B is 66.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,294.36 | $110.83 | −97.9% Granite 4.2 30B is 97.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 40.04s | 51.51s | +28.6% Granite 4.2 30B is 28.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $30.0 | $0.16 / $0.65 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 30B vs GPT-5.5 (Xhigh): 66.9% less intelligence, 97.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 28.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) 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 30B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
GPT-5.5 (Xhigh)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/gpt-5-5/granite-4-2-30b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-5/granite-4-2-30b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill