Granite-4.0-H-Small vs ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B
Granite-4.0-H-Small comes out ahead, 61 to 57 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
IBMGranite-4.0-H-Small
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.064 / $0.265
- Context131K
BaiduERNIE 4.5 21B A3B
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.28
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Granite-4.0-H-Small is our pick
Granite-4.0-H-Small is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B (57). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGranite-4.0-H-SmallGranite-4.0-H-Small $0.114 · ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B $0.122 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameGranite-4.0-H-Small 131,072 · ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGranite-4.0-H-Small: Text · ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Granite-4.0-H-Small | ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 91 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 57/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Granite-4.0-H-SmallIBM | ERNIE 4.5 21B A3BBaidu |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.064 (best) | $0.07 |
| Output | $0.265 (best) | $0.28 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.114 (best) | $0.122 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official watsonx.ai API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 8,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | ibm/granite-4-h-small | — |
| API providers | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Oct 2, 2025 | Jun 30, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Granite-4.0-H-Small$1.17
- ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B$1.26
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Granite-4.0-H-Small or ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B?
Granite-4.0-H-Small is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B (57). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Granite-4.0-H-Small or ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B?
Granite-4.0-H-Small is cheaper at $0.064 input / $0.265 output per million tokens (official watsonx.ai API price). ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B costs $0.07 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.114 per million tokens for Granite-4.0-H-Small versus $0.122 for ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Granite-4.0-H-Small has not been scored yet and ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Granite-4.0-H-Small and ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Granite-4.0-H-Small and ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B share the same 131,072-token context window. Maximum output per response: Granite-4.0-H-Small up to 131,072, ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B up to 8,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Granite-4.0-H-Small accepts text; ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Granite-4.0-H-Small is the newest, released Oct 2, 2025. ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B came out Jun 30, 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Apertus 8BThree-way comparison
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Apertus 8BSwiss AI
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Nemotron Nano 9B v2NVIDIA
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Ministral 3 3BMistral AI
- ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B vs Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
- ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B vs Apertus 8BSwiss AI
- ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B vs Mistral Small 3.2 24BMistral AI
