Side-by-side comparison
Granite 4.0 Micro vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
| Granite 4.0 Micro | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Meta |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 131,000 | 60,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | text-only | text-only |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.0170 | 0.0270 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.1100 | 0.2000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.0 Micro or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?
Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper than Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.05 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Granite 4.0 Micro or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?
Granite 4.0 Micro has the larger context window at 131k tokens versus 60k tokens for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct. That means Granite 4.0 Micro can ingest about 2.2x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Granite 4.0 Micro and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?
Granite 4.0 Micro comes from IBM; Llama 3.2 1B Instruct comes from Meta. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.