Granite 4.0 1B vs Qwen3 1.7B
Wins 2 of 6 areas
Coding · Long documents
Wins 2 of 6 areas
Reasoning · Following instructions
The two are evenly matched.Granite 4.0 1B is better at coding and long documents; Qwen3 1.7B at reasoning and following instructions.
Scores updated · 20 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software10Granite 4.0 1B1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Granite 4.0 1B1 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking01Qwen3 1.7B1 of 3 tests · 2 ties
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3 1.7B1 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own00Even0 each · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Agents, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Granite 4.0 1B pulls ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+4.4points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+1.3points ahead
Where Qwen3 1.7B pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+7.5points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+6.4points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+2.7points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 20 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGranite 4.0 1B
- SciCodeGranite 4.0 1B by 4.48.74.3+4.4
- Terminal-Bench Hardtie00tie
ReasoningQwen3 1.7B
- GPQA DiamondQwen3 1.7B by 7.528.135.6+7.5
- Humanity's Last Examtie4.84.6tie
- CritPttie00tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3 1.7B by 2.76.28.9+2.7
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGranite 4.0 1B by 1.36.55.2+1.3
Following instructionsQwen3 1.7B
- IFBenchQwen3 1.7B by 6.420.526.9+6.4
Other results10 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- MATH-500 (EM)Qwen3 1.7B by 37.144.881.9+37.1
- AIME25 no toolsQwen3 1.7B by 333.336.3+33
- MMLU-ProQwen3 1.7B by 23.533.557+23.5
- GSM8KGranite 4.0 1B by 2273.451.4+22
- IFEvalGranite 4.0 1B by 5.679.674+5.6
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3 1.7B by 4.1-81.6-77.5+4.1
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3 1.7B by 3.222.826+3.2
- BFCL v3Qwen3 1.7B by 352.455.4+3
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3 1.7B by 1.17.68.7+1.1
- AA Intelligencetie55.2tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Granite 4.0 1B or Qwen3 1.7B?
Granite 4.0 1B and Qwen3 1.7B each win two of the six areas where both have results. Granite 4.0 1B wins coding and long documents; Qwen3 1.7B wins reasoning and following instructions. They are level on agents and facts.
Which is better for coding?
Granite 4.0 1B. It wins 1 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 1.7B wins none, and 1 is a tie.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 20 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 10 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 10 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.