Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
LFM2.5-350M
~39
0/8 categoriesQwen3.6 Plus
69
Winner · 2/8 categoriesLFM2.5-350M· Qwen3.6 Plus
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-350M only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 69 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 66 against 23.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is MMLU-Pro, 20.0% to 88.5%.
Qwen3.6 Plus is the reasoning model in the pair, while LFM2.5-350M 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. Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 32K for LFM2.5-350M.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-350M | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Agentic | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | — | 61.6% |
| Claw-Eval | — | 58.7% |
| QwenClawBench | — | 57.2% |
| QwenWebBench | — | 1502 |
| TAU3-Bench | — | 70.7% |
| VITA-Bench | — | 44.3% |
| DeepPlanning | — | 41.5% |
| Toolathlon | — | 39.8% |
| MCP Atlas | — | 48.2% |
| MCP-Tasks | — | 74.1% |
| WideResearch | — | 74.3% |
| OSWorld-Verified | — | 62.5% |
| Coding | ||
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.8% |
| SWE-bench Pro | — | 56.6% |
| SWE Multilingual | — | 73.8% |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | — | 87.1% |
| NL2Repo | — | 37.9% |
| Multimodal & Grounded | ||
| MMMU | — | 86.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | — | 78.8% |
| RealWorldQA | — | 85.4% |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | — | 91.2% |
| Video-MME (with subtitle) | — | 87.8% |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle) | — | 84.2% |
| MathVision | — | 88.0% |
| We-Math | — | 89.0% |
| DynaMath | — | 88.0% |
| MStar | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleVQA | — | 67.3% |
| ChatCVQA | — | 81.5% |
| MMLongBench-Doc | — | 62.0% |
| CC-OCR | — | 83.4% |
| AI2D_TEST | — | 94.4% |
| CountBench | — | 97.6% |
| RefCOCO (avg) | — | 93.5% |
| ODINW13 | — | 51.8% |
| ERQA | — | 65.7% |
| VideoMMMU | — | 84.0% |
| MLVU (M-Avg) | — | 86.7% |
| ScreenSpot Pro | — | 68.2% |
| Reasoning | ||
| AI-Needle | — | 68.3% |
| LongBench v2 | — | 62% |
| KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| GPQA | 30.6% | 90.4% |
| MMLU-Pro | 20.0% | 88.5% |
| SuperGPQA | — | 71.6% |
| MMLU-Redux | — | 94.5% |
| C-Eval | — | 93.3% |
| HLE | — | 28.8% |
| Instruction FollowingQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| IFEval | 77.0% | 94.3% |
| IFBench | — | 74.2% |
| Multilingual | ||
| MMLU-ProX | — | 84.7% |
| NOVA-63 | — | 57.9% |
| INCLUDE | — | 85.1% |
| PolyMath | — | 77.4% |
| VWT2k-lite | — | 84.3% |
| MAXIFE | — | 88.2% |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME26 | — | 95.3% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 96.7% |
| HMMT Nov 2025 | — | 94.6% |
| HMMT Feb 2026 | — | 87.8% |
| MMAnswerBench | — | 83.8% |
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead overall, 69 to 39. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 20.0% and 88.5%.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 23.8. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 94.3 versus 77. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.