Skip to main content

Model comparison

Inkling vs LFM2.5-230M

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
Margin
38.0pts
← winning
LiquidAI
31/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Inkling #17; LFM2.5-230M unranked

Evidence parity. Inkling and LFM2.5-230M share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Inkling; 3 to LFM2.5-230M.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
3
Inkling only
13
LFM2.5-230M only
3
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-230M only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or 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

Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 31. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Inkling's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 51.7 against 21.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 87.9% to 25.4%.

Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for LFM2.5-230M. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. LFM2.5-230M is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 Inkling and LFM2.5-230M
CategoryInklingΔLFM2.5-230M
KnowledgeInkling51.7Margin 30.5LFM2.5-230M21.2
Inst. FollowingInkling79.8Margin 29.7LFM2.5-230M50.1
AgenticInkling69.4MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured
CodingInkling68.6MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured
MathInkling97.1MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured
MultimodalInkling76.5MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-230MNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · InklingB · LFM2.5-230M
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.9%B 25.4%
    Winner: InklingΔ 62.5
    GPQA: Inkling scored 87.9%; LFM2.5-230M scored 25.4%. Inkling wins this benchmark.
  2. IFBench

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 79.8%B 38.4%
    Winner: InklingΔ 41.4
    IFBench: Inkling scored 79.8%; LFM2.5-230M scored 38.4%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricInklingLFM2.5-230MComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputLFM2.5-230M$0 input / $0 outputLFM2.5-230M has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondInklingNot availableLFM2.5-230MNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenInklingNot availableLFM2.5-230MNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensInkling1MLFM2.5-230M32KInkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkInklingLFM2.5-230MResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 77.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.1%Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource 1258Not comparable
BFCL v4Source 21.0%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkInklingLFM2.5-230MResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
KnowledgeInkling wins
BenchmarkInklingLFM2.5-230MResult
GPQASource 87.9%25.4%Inkling leads
GPQA-DSource 87.9%25.4%Inkling leads
HLESource 46%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 30%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 20.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkInklingLFM2.5-230MResult
AIME26Source 97.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkInklingLFM2.5-230MResult
MMMU-ProSource 73.5%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 78.1%Not comparable
Inst. FollowingInkling wins
BenchmarkInklingLFM2.5-230MResult
IFBenchSource 79.8%38.4%Inkling leads
IFEvalSource 71.7%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

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

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 31. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87.9% and 25.4%.

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

Inkling has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 51.7 versus 21.2. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Inkling has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 50.1. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 15, 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.