Skip to main content

Model comparison

Hy3 Preview vs LFM2.5-230M

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

54/100
Margin
23.0pts
← winning
LiquidAI
31/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Evidence parity. Hy3 Preview and LFM2.5-230M share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Hy3 Preview; 3 to LFM2.5-230M.

Updated July 14, 2026
Shared results
3
Hy3 Preview only
19
LFM2.5-230M only
3
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Hy3 Preview if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-230M only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 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

Hy3 Preview is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 54 to 31. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Hy3 Preview's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 63.1 against 50.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 87.2% to 25.4%.

Hy3 Preview is the reasoning model in the pair, while LFM2.5-230M is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Hy3 Preview gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 32K for LFM2.5-230M.

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 Hy3 Preview and LFM2.5-230M
CategoryHy3 PreviewΔLFM2.5-230M
Inst. FollowingHy3 Preview63.1Margin 13.0LFM2.5-230M50.1
KnowledgeHy3 Preview33.8Margin 12.6LFM2.5-230M21.2
AgenticHy3 Preview54.4MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured
CodingHy3 Preview61.6MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Hy3 PreviewB · LFM2.5-230M
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.2%B 25.4%
    Winner: Hy3 PreviewΔ 61.8
    GPQA: Hy3 Preview scored 87.2%; LFM2.5-230M scored 25.4%. Hy3 Preview wins this benchmark.
  2. IFBench

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 63.1%B 38.4%
    Winner: Hy3 PreviewΔ 24.7
    IFBench: Hy3 Preview scored 63.1%; LFM2.5-230M scored 38.4%. Hy3 Preview wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricHy3 PreviewLFM2.5-230MComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensHy3 Preview$0 input / $0 outputLFM2.5-230M$0 input / $0 outputListed prices are equal.
Generation speedtokens per secondHy3 PreviewNot availableLFM2.5-230MNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenHy3 PreviewNot availableLFM2.5-230MNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensHy3 Preview256KLFM2.5-230M32KHy3 Preview lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkHy3 PreviewLFM2.5-230MResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 54.4%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 36.91%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 30.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 35.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1214Not comparable
BFCL v4Source 21.0%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkHy3 PreviewLFM2.5-230MResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.4%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 54.4%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 41.2%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 58.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkHy3 PreviewLFM2.5-230MResult
AA-LCRSource 66.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 4.9%Not comparable
KnowledgeHy3 Preview wins
BenchmarkHy3 PreviewLFM2.5-230MResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 41.2%Not comparable
GPQASource 87.2%25.4%Hy3 Preview leads
GPQA-DSource 87.2%25.4%Hy3 Preview leads
HLESource 25.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 31.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 73.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 89.7%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 31.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -18.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 20.3%Not comparable
Inst. FollowingHy3 Preview wins
BenchmarkHy3 PreviewLFM2.5-230MResult
IFBenchSource 63.1%38.4%Hy3 Preview leads
IFEvalSource 71.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Hy3 Preview or LFM2.5-230M?

Hy3 Preview is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 54 to 31. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87.2% and 25.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Hy3 Preview or LFM2.5-230M?

Hy3 Preview has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 33.8 versus 21.2. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Hy3 Preview or LFM2.5-230M?

Hy3 Preview has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 63.1 versus 50.1. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 14, 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.