Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs LFM2.5-8B-A1B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

75.02/100
Margin
33.8pts
← winning
41.25/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.5 Flash #7; LFM2.5-8B-A1B unranked

BenchAlign evidence: Gemini 3.5 Flash supported; LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.5 Flash and LFM2.5-8B-A1B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 38 results are unique to Gemini 3.5 Flash; 5 to LFM2.5-8B-A1B.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
13
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
38
LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
5
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Gemini 3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Gemini 3.5 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 37. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Gemini 3.5 Flash's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 76.3 against 68.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFBench, 76.3% to 56.5%. LFM2.5-8B-A1B does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Gemini 3.5 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $9.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for LFM2.5-8B-A1B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Gemini 3.5 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for LFM2.5-8B-A1B.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Gemini 3.5 Flash and LFM2.5-8B-A1B
CategoryGemini 3.5 FlashΔLFM2.5-8B-A1B
MathGemini 3.5 Flash32.9Margin→ 17.1LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0
Inst. FollowingGemini 3.5 Flash76.3Margin← 7.5LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8
AgenticGemini 3.5 Flash77.2MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured
CodingGemini 3.5 Flash53.9MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured
ReasoningGemini 3.5 Flash74.7MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured
KnowledgeGemini 3.5 Flash47.2MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured
MultimodalGemini 3.5 Flash83.8MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Gemini 3.5 FlashB · LFM2.5-8B-A1B

  1. IFBench

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 76.3%B 56.5%
    Winner: Gemini 3.5 FlashΔ 19.8
    IFBench: Gemini 3.5 Flash scored 76.3%; LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 56.5%. Gemini 3.5 Flash wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGemini 3.5 FlashLFM2.5-8B-A1BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.5 Flash$1.5 input / $9 outputLFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 outputLFM2.5-8B-A1B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.5 Flash284.2 tok/sLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.5 Flash18.55 sLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.5 Flash1MLFM2.5-8B-A1B128KGemini 3.5 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLFM2.5-8B-A1BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 76.2%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 83.6%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 56.5%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 57.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1349—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.3%16.1%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
GDPval-AASource 42.4%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 37.5%—Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 47.1%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 62.80%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 866—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 42.6%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 50.1%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 1.7%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 40.3%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 25.4%—Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —49.7%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLFM2.5-8B-A1BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 76.2%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 40.9%4.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
SWE-bench ProSource 55.1%—Not comparable
SciCodeSource 53.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 48.68%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 49.8%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 70.1%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 53.1%7.8%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 78.7%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLFM2.5-8B-A1BResult
MRCRv2Source 77.3%—Not comparable
MRCR 1MSource 26.6%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 72.1%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 69.3%0.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
CritPtSource 13.1%0.0%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLFM2.5-8B-A1BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 50.2%8.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
GPQASource 92.2%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.7%—Not comparable
HLESource 40.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 51.9%9.4%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 60.7%47.0%LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.2%51.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 41.0%6.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 22.7%-33.3%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLFM2.5-8B-A1BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 38.966%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 14.583%—Not comparable
MATH-500Source —88.8%Not comparable
AIME 2025Source —42.5%Not comparable
AIME26Source —50.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLFM2.5-8B-A1BResult
CharXivSource 84.2%—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 83.6%—Not comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2Source 33.6%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 84.3%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1288—Not comparable
Inst. FollowingGemini 3.5 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.5 FlashLFM2.5-8B-A1BResult
IFBenchSource 76.3%56.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
AA-IFBenchSource 76.3%55.6%Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
IFEvalSource —91.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 37. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFBench, where the scores are 76.3% and 56.5%.

Which is better for math, Gemini 3.5 Flash or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?

LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 50 versus 32.9. Gemini 3.5 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for instruction following, Gemini 3.5 Flash or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 68.8. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 16, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.