The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek R1 Zero vs IBM Granite 4.2 3B

DeepSeek R1 Zero and IBM Granite 4.2 3B are closely matched at 16.2 and 15.6 on the LLM Stats Score.

DeepSeek · IBM · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek R1 Zero and IBM Granite 4.2 3B are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 16.2 and 15.6.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, DeepSeek R1 Zero wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose DeepSeek R1 Zero

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results

Choose IBM Granite 4.2 3B

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
16.2
#208
15.6
#213
16.5
#200
12.0
#234
4.4
#197
-6.7
#247
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
DeepSeek R1 Zero
IBM Granite 4.2 3B
17.7#185
13.7#216
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

4 reported for DeepSeek R1 Zero · 13 for IBM Granite 4.2 3B

1 shared

DeepSeek R1 Zero outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while IBM Granite 4.2 3B is better at 0 benchmarks.

DeepSeek R1 Zero significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

668.0B diff

DeepSeek R1 Zero has 668.0B more parameters than IBM Granite 4.2 3B, making it 22266.7% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek R1 Zero
671.0Bparameters
IBM
IBM Granite 4.2 3B
3.0Bparameters
671.0B
DeepSeek R1 Zero
3.0B
IBM Granite 4.2 3B

License

Usage and distribution terms

DeepSeek R1 Zero is licensed under MIT, while IBM Granite 4.2 3B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

DeepSeek R1 Zero

MIT

Open weights

IBM Granite 4.2 3B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek R1 Zero was released on 2025-01-20, while IBM Granite 4.2 3B was released on 2026-08-25.

IBM Granite 4.2 3B is 19 months newer than DeepSeek R1 Zero.

DeepSeek R1 Zero

Jan 20, 2025

1.6 years ago

IBM Granite 4.2 3B

Aug 25, 2026

6 days ago

1.6yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against DeepSeek R1 Zero and IBM Granite 4.2 3B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek R1 Zero
✓ Preferred
IBM Granite 4.2 3B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek R1 Zero vs IBM Granite 4.2 3B.

Which is better, DeepSeek R1 Zero or IBM Granite 4.2 3B?

DeepSeek R1 Zero and IBM Granite 4.2 3B are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 16.2 and 15.6. DeepSeek R1 Zero is made by DeepSeek and IBM Granite 4.2 3B is made by IBM. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does DeepSeek R1 Zero compare to IBM Granite 4.2 3B in benchmarks?

DeepSeek R1 Zero scores MATH-500: 95.9%, AIME 2024: 86.7%, GPQA: 73.3%, LiveCodeBench: 50.0%. IBM Granite 4.2 3B scores AIME 2025: 78.3%, IFBench: 74.3%, LiveCodeBench v6: 69.7%, MMLU-Pro: 67.8%, RULER 64k: 67.5%.

What are the main differences between DeepSeek R1 Zero and IBM Granite 4.2 3B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (16.2 vs 15.6), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek R1 Zero and IBM Granite 4.2 3B?

DeepSeek R1 Zero is developed by DeepSeek and IBM Granite 4.2 3B is developed by IBM.