Model comparison
GLM-4.6 vs LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: GLM-4.6 supported; LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GLM-4.6 and LFM2.5-8B-A1B share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to GLM-4.6; 6 to LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- GLM-4.6 only
- 3
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-4.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 45 to 37. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-4.6 gives you the larger context window at 200K, 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 | GLM-4.6 | Δ | LFM2.5-8B-A1B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GLM-4.63.4 | Margin→ 46.6 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 |
| Inst. Following | GLM-4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GLM-4.6 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GLM-4.6Not available | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GLM-4.6Not available | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GLM-4.6Not available | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GLM-4.6200K | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | GLM-4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic2 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GLM-4.6 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.0% | 8.3% | GLM-4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 63.2% | 51.3% | GLM-4.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 5.2% | 6.9% | LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -31.6% | -33.3% | GLM-4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 20.8% | 9.4% | GLM-4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 66.1% | 47.0% | LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads |
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B wins5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, GLM-4.6 or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
GLM-4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 45 to 37.
Which is better for math, GLM-4.6 or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 50 versus 3.4. GLM-4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.