Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Ministral 3 14B vs Apertus 8B
Too close to call on our weighted score (Ministral 3 14B 63, Granite-4.0-H-Small 63, Apertus 8B 56). The right pick depends on what you value most.
IBMGranite-4.0-H-Small
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.064 / $0.265
- Context131K
Mistral AIMinistral 3 14B
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.268 / $0.325
- Context262K
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Ministral 3 14B 63/100, Granite-4.0-H-Small 63/100, Apertus 8B 56/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite-4.0-H-Small on price and Ministral 3 14B for long inputs. 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 · Apertus 8B $0.125 · Ministral 3 14B $0.282 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMinistral 3 14BMinistral 3 14B 262,144 · Granite-4.0-H-Small 131,072 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsMinistral 3 14BGranite-4.0-H-Small: Text · Ministral 3 14B: Text, Images · Apertus 8B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Granite-4.0-H-Small | Ministral 3 14B | Apertus 8B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 76 | 93 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 60 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 37 | 12 |
| Overall | 100% | 63/100 | 63/100 | 56/100 |
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 | Ministral 3 14BMistral AI | Apertus 8BSwiss AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.064 (best) | $0.268 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.265 | $0.325 | $0.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.114 (best) | $0.282 | $0.125 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official watsonx.ai API | Median of 2 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache 2.0 | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | ibm/granite-4-h-small | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 2 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Oct 2, 2025 | Dec 2, 2025 | Sep 2, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | Sep 2025 |
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
- Ministral 3 14B$3.33
- Apertus 8B$1.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Granite-4.0-H-Small, Ministral 3 14B or Apertus 8B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Ministral 3 14B 63/100, Granite-4.0-H-Small 63/100, Apertus 8B 56/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite-4.0-H-Small on price and Ministral 3 14B for long inputs. 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, Ministral 3 14B or Apertus 8B?
Granite-4.0-H-Small is cheaper at $0.064 input / $0.265 output per million tokens (official watsonx.ai API price). Apertus 8B costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Ministral 3 14B costs $0.268 input / $0.325 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). 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 $0.125 for Apertus 8B (1.1× as much) and $0.282 for Ministral 3 14B (2.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Granite-4.0-H-Small has not been scored yet, Ministral 3 14B has not been scored yet and Apertus 8B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Granite-4.0-H-Small, Ministral 3 14B and Apertus 8B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Ministral 3 14B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for Granite-4.0-H-Small and 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Granite-4.0-H-Small up to 131,072, Ministral 3 14B up to 262,144, Apertus 8B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Granite-4.0-H-Small accepts text; Ministral 3 14B accepts text and images; Apertus 8B accepts text. Ministral 3 14B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache 2.0 and Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Ministral 3 14B is the newest, released Dec 2, 2025. Granite-4.0-H-Small came out Oct 2, 2025; Apertus 8B came out Sep 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 8B Sep 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.
