Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Granite-4.0-H-Micro
Too close to call on our weighted score (Granite-4.0-H-Micro 65, Granite-4.0-H-Small 63). The right pick depends on what you value most.
IBMGranite-4.0-H-Small
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.064 / $0.265
- Context131K
- IBM
Granite-4.0-H-Micro
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.017 / $0.112
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Granite-4.0-H-Micro 65/100, Granite-4.0-H-Small 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite-4.0-H-Micro on price. 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-MicroGranite-4.0-H-Micro $0.041 · Granite-4.0-H-Small $0.114 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameGranite-4.0-H-Small 131,072 · Granite-4.0-H-Micro 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGranite-4.0-H-Small: Text · Granite-4.0-H-Micro: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Granite-4.0-H-Small | Granite-4.0-H-Micro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 63/100 | 65/100 |
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 | Granite-4.0-H-MicroIBM |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.064 | $0.017 (best) |
| Output | $0.265 | $0.112 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.114 | $0.041 (best) |
| 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 | 131,072 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 | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | ibm/granite-4-h-small | — |
| API providers | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Oct 2, 2025 | Oct 2, 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
- Granite-4.0-H-Micro$0.394
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Granite-4.0-H-Small or Granite-4.0-H-Micro?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Granite-4.0-H-Micro 65/100, Granite-4.0-H-Small 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite-4.0-H-Micro on price. 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 Granite-4.0-H-Micro?
Granite-4.0-H-Micro is cheaper at $0.017 input / $0.112 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Granite-4.0-H-Small costs $0.064 input / $0.265 output per million tokens (official watsonx.ai API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.041 per million tokens for Granite-4.0-H-Micro versus $0.114 for Granite-4.0-H-Small (2.8× 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 Granite-4.0-H-Micro 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 Granite-4.0-H-Micro 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 Granite-4.0-H-Micro share the same 131,072-token context window. Maximum output per response: Granite-4.0-H-Small up to 131,072, Granite-4.0-H-Micro up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Granite-4.0-H-Small accepts text; Granite-4.0-H-Micro accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Granite-4.0-H-Small is the newest, released Oct 2, 2025. Granite-4.0-H-Micro came out Oct 2, 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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Apertus 8BThree-way comparison
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Apertus 8BSwiss AI
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Ministral 3 3BMistral AI
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Sarvam 105BSarvam AI
- Granite-4.0-H-Micro vs Voxtral Mini 3B 2507Mistral AI
- Granite-4.0-H-Micro vs Sarvam 30BSarvam AI
