GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) vs Granite 4.2 3B
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) by OpenAI or Granite 4.2 3B 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
GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) scores 29.3 points higher (38.4 vs 9.1) but costs 355× as much to run the benchmark ($5294 vs $14.9; flagship vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 9.1, and Granite 4.2 3B when 9.1 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) | Granite 4.2 3B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 38.4 | 9.1 | −76.3% Granite 4.2 3B is 76.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,294.36 | $14.91 | −99.7% Granite 4.2 3B is 99.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 44.96s | 35.30s | −21.5% Granite 4.2 3B is 21.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $30.0 | $0.03 / $0.12 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 3B vs GPT-5.5 (Xhigh): 76.3% less intelligence, 99.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 21.5% faster 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 3B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
GPT-5.5 (Xhigh)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/gpt-5-5/granite-4-2-3b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-5/granite-4-2-3b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill