Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs LFM2.5-VL-450M

Data verified

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

41.25/100
Margin
7.3pts
← winning
34/100
1 category wins0 category wins

BenchAlign evidence: LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated; LFM2.5-VL-450M not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. LFM2.5-8B-A1B and LFM2.5-VL-450M share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to LFM2.5-8B-A1B; 5 to LFM2.5-VL-450M.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
2
LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
16
LFM2.5-VL-450M only
5
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick LFM2.5-8B-A1B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-VL-450M 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 2 shared benchmark results across 2 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

LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 37 versus 34. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

LFM2.5-8B-A1B's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 68.8 against 61.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFEval, 91.8% to 61.2%.

LFM2.5-8B-A1B is the reasoning model in the pair, while LFM2.5-VL-450M 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.

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 LFM2.5-8B-A1B and LFM2.5-VL-450M
CategoryLFM2.5-8B-A1BΔLFM2.5-VL-450M
Inst. FollowingLFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8Margin← 7.6LFM2.5-VL-450M61.2
KnowledgeLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-450M20.5
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0MarginNo overlapLFM2.5-VL-450MNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · LFM2.5-8B-A1BB · LFM2.5-VL-450M

  1. IFEval

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 91.8%B 61.2%
    Winner: LFM2.5-8B-A1BΔ 30.7
    IFEval: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 91.8%; LFM2.5-VL-450M scored 61.2%. LFM2.5-8B-A1B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricLFM2.5-8B-A1BLFM2.5-VL-450MComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensLFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 outputLFM2.5-VL-450M$0 input / $0 outputListed prices are equal.
Generation speedtokens per secondLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableLFM2.5-VL-450MNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableLFM2.5-VL-450MNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensLFM2.5-8B-A1B128KLFM2.5-VL-450M128KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BLFM2.5-VL-450MResult
BFCL v4Source 49.7%21.1%LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 16.1%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BLFM2.5-VL-450MResult
Terminal-Bench HardSource 4.5%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 7.8%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BLFM2.5-VL-450MResult
AA-LCRSource 0.0%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BLFM2.5-VL-450MResult
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 51.3%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 6.9%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -33.3%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 9.4%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 47.0%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 8.3%—Not comparable
GPQASource —25.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —19.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BLFM2.5-VL-450MResult
MATH-500Source 88.8%—Not comparable
AIME 2025Source 42.5%—Not comparable
AIME26Source 50.0%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BLFM2.5-VL-450MResult
MMMUSource —32.7%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —58.4%Not comparable
CountBenchSource —73.3%Not comparable
Inst. FollowingLFM2.5-8B-A1B wins
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BLFM2.5-VL-450MResult
IFEvalSource 91.8%61.2%LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads
IFBenchSource 56.5%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 55.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or LFM2.5-VL-450M?

LFM2.5-8B-A1B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 37 to 34. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFEval, where the scores are 91.8% and 61.2%.

Which is better for instruction following, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or LFM2.5-VL-450M?

LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 68.8 versus 61.2. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

LiquidAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 16, 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.