Qwen2.5-VL-32B vs LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.

Qwen2.5-VL-32B is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 38 to 33. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen2.5-VL-32B's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 52.2 against 32.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMMU-Pro, 58 to 27. LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking does hit back in instruction following, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen2.5-VL-32B 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.

Quick Verdict

Pick Qwen2.5-VL-32B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Agentic

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

33.5

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

34.1

30
Terminal-Bench 2.0
34
41
BrowseComp
37
32
OSWorld-Verified
32

Coding

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

14.3

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

8.2

35
HumanEval
17
17
SWE-bench Verified
10
11
LiveCodeBench
9
17
SWE-bench Pro
7

Multimodal & Grounded

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

52.2

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

32.4

58
MMMU-Pro
27
45
OfficeQA Pro
39

Reasoning

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

43.2

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

38.4

41
SimpleQA
29
39
MuSR
31
61
BBH
67
42
LongBench v2
39
43
MRCRv2
42

Knowledge

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

34.7

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

27

43
MMLU
27
42
GPQA
26
40
SuperGPQA
24
38
OpenBookQA
22
53
MMLU-Pro
51
2
HLE
2
43
FrontierScience
31

Instruction Following

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

67

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

72

67
IFEval
72

Multilingual

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

60.4

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

60.7

63
MGSM
62
59
MMLU-ProX
60

Mathematics

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

Qwen2.5-VL-32B

49.7

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking

42.3

43
AIME 2023
28
45
AIME 2024
30
44
AIME 2025
29
39
HMMT Feb 2023
24
41
HMMT Feb 2024
26
40
HMMT Feb 2025
25
42
BRUMO 2025
27
59
MATH-500
61

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better, Qwen2.5-VL-32B or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?

Qwen2.5-VL-32B is ahead overall, 38 to 33. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMMU-Pro, where the scores are 58 and 27.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Qwen2.5-VL-32B or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?

Qwen2.5-VL-32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 34.7 versus 27. Inside this category, MMLU is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Qwen2.5-VL-32B or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?

Qwen2.5-VL-32B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 14.3 versus 8.2. Inside this category, HumanEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Qwen2.5-VL-32B or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?

Qwen2.5-VL-32B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 49.7 versus 42.3. Inside this category, AIME 2023 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Qwen2.5-VL-32B or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?

Qwen2.5-VL-32B has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 43.2 versus 38.4. Inside this category, SimpleQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen2.5-VL-32B or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 34.1 versus 33.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Qwen2.5-VL-32B or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?

Qwen2.5-VL-32B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.2 versus 32.4. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Qwen2.5-VL-32B or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 67. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multilingual tasks, Qwen2.5-VL-32B or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?

LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.7 versus 60.4. Inside this category, MGSM is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Last updated: March 12, 2026

Weekly LLM Benchmark Digest

Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.