Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Ibm-granite
vs
Meta-llama
Meta-llama

Granite 4.0 Micro vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Granite 4.0 Micro wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Supports vision

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Better at math
Price Advantage
Granite 4.0 Micro
Benchmark Advantage
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Context Window
Granite 4.0 Micro
Speed
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B Instruct
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGranite 4.0 MicroLlama 3.1 8B Instruct
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorIbm-graniteMeta-llama
ReleasedOct 2025Jul 2024

Granite 4.0 Micro Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Granite 4.0 Micro with:

Compare Llama 3.1 8B Instruct with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Granite 4.0 Micro has cheaper input pricing at $0.02/M tokens. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.05/M tokens.
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 4.9, compared to Granite 4.0 Micro's score of N/A.
Granite 4.0 Micro has a 131,000 token context window, while Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has a 16,384 token context window.
Granite 4.0 Micro supports vision. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct does not support vision.