Granite 4.2 30B vs Mistral Small 3.1
Which is better for the money: Granite 4.2 30B by IBM or Mistral Small 3.1 by Mistral? 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
Granite 4.2 30B scores 5.6 points higher (12.7 vs 7.1) but costs 4.0× as much to run the benchmark ($111 vs $27.8; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Granite 4.2 30B when you need intelligence above 7.1, and Mistral Small 3.1 when 7.1 is enough.
| Metric | Granite 4.2 30B | Mistral Small 3.1 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 12.7 | 7.1 | −44.1% Mistral Small 3.1 is 44.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $110.83 | $27.82 | −74.9% Mistral Small 3.1 is 74.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 54.96s | 11.75s | −78.6% Mistral Small 3.1 is 78.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.16 / $0.65 | $0.08 / $0.14 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
Mistral Small 3.1 vs Granite 4.2 30B: 44.1% less intelligence, 74.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 78.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Granite 4.2 30B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
- Mistral Small 3.1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
Granite 4.2 30BMistral Small 3.1Today'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/granite-4-2-30b/mistral-small-3-1 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/granite-4-2-30b/mistral-small-3-1?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill