The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs IBM Granite 4.2 30B

IBM Granite 4.2 30B leads the LLM Stats Score 24.0 to 16.7.

Google · IBM · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

IBM Granite 4.2 30B leads the overall LLM Stats Score 24.0 to 16.7, ranking #156 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, IBM Granite 4.2 30B wins 2; 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.10/M input and $0.40/M output

Choose IBM Granite 4.2 30B

  • overall performance matters — it scores 24.0 and ranks #156 on LLM Stats
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 3 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemini 2.0 Flash
Google
IBM Granite 4.2 30B
IBM
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
16.7
#204
24.0
#156
Reasoning
16.1
#204
21.8
#165
Coding
1.8
#216
9.6
#159
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 3
2 of 3
Input price
$0.10 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.40 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Gemini 2.0 Flash
IBM Granite 4.2 30B
Math
23.6#121
25.6#103
Long context
11.4#62
14.0#50
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

13 reported for Gemini 2.0 Flash · 18 for IBM Granite 4.2 30B

3 shared

Gemini 2.0 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Bird-SQL (dev)), while IBM Granite 4.2 30B is better at 2 benchmarks (GPQA, MMLU-Pro).

IBM Granite 4.2 30B shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Gemini 2.0 Flash specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only Gemini 2.0 Flash specifies output context (8,192 tokens).

Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
IBM
IBM Granite 4.2 30B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Gemini 2.0 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas IBM Granite 4.2 30B does not.

Gemini 2.0 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

IBM Granite 4.2 30B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.0 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while IBM Granite 4.2 30B uses Apache 2.0.

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

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

IBM Granite 4.2 30B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.0 Flash was released on 2024-12-01, while IBM Granite 4.2 30B was released on 2026-08-25.

IBM Granite 4.2 30B is 21 months newer than Gemini 2.0 Flash.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Dec 1, 2024

1.7 years ago

IBM Granite 4.2 30B

Aug 25, 2026

6 days ago

1.7yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.0 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-08-01, while IBM Granite 4.2 30B's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 2.0 Flash's training data extends to 2024-08-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without IBM Granite 4.2 30B's cutoff date.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Aug 2024

IBM Granite 4.2 30B

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 2.0 Flash and IBM Granite 4.2 30B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 2.0 Flash
✓ Preferred
IBM Granite 4.2 30B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.0 Flash vs IBM Granite 4.2 30B.

Which is better, Gemini 2.0 Flash or IBM Granite 4.2 30B?

IBM Granite 4.2 30B leads the LLM Stats Score 24.0 to 16.7. Gemini 2.0 Flash is made by Google and IBM Granite 4.2 30B is made by IBM. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Gemini 2.0 Flash compare to IBM Granite 4.2 30B in benchmarks?

Gemini 2.0 Flash scores Natural2Code: 92.9%, MATH: 89.7%, FACTS Grounding: 83.6%, MMLU-Pro: 76.4%, EgoSchema: 71.5%. IBM Granite 4.2 30B scores RULER 64k: 90.0%, AIME 2025: 89.2%, HMMT25: 89.2%, RULER 128k: 81.4%, MMLU-Pro: 77.6%.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 2.0 Flash and IBM Granite 4.2 30B?

Gemini 2.0 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and IBM Granite 4.2 30B supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 2.0 Flash and IBM Granite 4.2 30B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (16.7 vs 24.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 2.0 Flash and IBM Granite 4.2 30B?

Gemini 2.0 Flash is developed by Google and IBM Granite 4.2 30B is developed by IBM.

Related comparisons