Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Granite 4.0 Micro vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct leads Granite 4.0 Micro on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 6.9 to 5.1, and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs 1.4x less per output token ($0.08 vs $0.112 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 13 benchmarks have a result for both.

Granite 4.0 MicroIBM Granite
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.112
7
Llama 3.1 8B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
17.9
Output $/M
$0.08
6
vs boards won of 13 shared

Granite 4.0 Micro or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Granite 4.0 Micro for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Shared results
13
Granite 4.0 Micro only
0
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct only
38
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Granite 4.0 Micro not benchmarked, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 7.4 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Granite 4.0 Micro 7.0% against Llama 3.1 8B Instruct 18.0%, 11.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Granite 4.0 Micro $0.112 against Llama 3.1 8B Instruct $0.08 per million output tokens, 1.4x apart.
Context window
Granite 4.0 Micro takes 131K tokens, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGranite 4.0 MicroBarsLlama 3.1 8B InstructTies
Coding20
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning21
Math30
Knowledge01
General02
All shared boards76
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured5.4Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)18.0%11.6%Granite 4.0 Micro
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)1.5%0.8%Granite 4.0 Micro
WeirdMLNot measured1.7%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1195Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1195Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index5.16.9Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured116.5Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom12.6%16.4%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BALROGNot measured15.1%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured25.8%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21
Reasoning benchmarks for Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)33.6%25.9%Granite 4.0 Micro
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.0%5.3%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)28.3%27.0%Granite 4.0 Micro
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1175Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1144Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1196Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Math benchmarks for Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
AA Math Index6.04.3Granite 4.0 Micro
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)6.0%4.3%Granite 4.0 Micro
OTIS Mock AIME2.8%1.7%Granite 4.0 Micro
MATH level 5Not measured22.9%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
GSM8KNot measured82.4%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1179Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1180Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Knowledge benchmarks for Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)44.7%47.6%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
MMLUNot measured56.1%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1193Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1182Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1206Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1166Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
IFBench24.8%28.6%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)7.0%18.0%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
DTBenchNot measured50.9%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured5.4%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
PIQANot measured81.2%Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena TextNot measured1187Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1159Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1154Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1218Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1148Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1151Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1144Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1061Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1053Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1178Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1169Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1158Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1172Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1181Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1162Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1145Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BenchmarkGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Granite 4.0 Micro$0.0001Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.0001Fits in one request

Granite 4.0 Micro costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Granite 4.0 Micro$0.0012Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.0027Fits in one request

Granite 4.0 Micro costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Granite 4.0 Micro$0.0045Exceeds the context window
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.011Exceeds the context window

Granite 4.0 Micro costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
SpecificationIBM Granite 4.0 MicroMeta Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
MakerIBM GraniteMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedOctober 20, 2025July 23, 2024
Context window131K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.017$0.05
Output $/Mtok$0.112$0.08
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Granite 4.0 Micro better than Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Granite 4.0 Micro for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or τ²-Bench Telecom, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Granite 4.0 Micro or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?

Granite 4.0 Micro costs $0.017 per million input tokens and $0.112 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs $0.05 and $0.08. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Granite 4.0 Micro or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, with 131K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Granite 4.0 Micro vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct comparison based on?

13 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Granite 4.0 Micro's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next