Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs MiniCPM5-1B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

41.25/100
Margin
5.3pts
← winning
36/100
2 category wins0 category wins

BenchAlign evidence: LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated; MiniCPM5-1B not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. LFM2.5-8B-A1B and MiniCPM5-1B share 6 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to LFM2.5-8B-A1B; 8 to MiniCPM5-1B.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
6
LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
12
MiniCPM5-1B only
8
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick LFM2.5-8B-A1B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniCPM5-1B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 131K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 3 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

LFM2.5-8B-A1B finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 37 to 36. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.

LFM2.5-8B-A1B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 50 against 33.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFEval, 91.8% to 80.4%.

MiniCPM5-1B gives you the larger context window at 131K, compared with 128K for LFM2.5-8B-A1B.

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 MiniCPM5-1B
CategoryLFM2.5-8B-A1BΔMiniCPM5-1B
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0Margin← 16.9MiniCPM5-1B33.1
Inst. FollowingLFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8Margin← 10.3MiniCPM5-1B58.5
KnowledgeLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapMiniCPM5-1B44.1

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · LFM2.5-8B-A1BB · MiniCPM5-1B

  1. IFEval

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 91.8%B 80.4%
    Winner: LFM2.5-8B-A1BΔ 11.4
    IFEval: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 91.8%; MiniCPM5-1B scored 80.4%. LFM2.5-8B-A1B wins this benchmark.

  2. IFBench

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 56.5%B 46.7%
    Winner: LFM2.5-8B-A1BΔ 9.8
    IFBench: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 56.5%; MiniCPM5-1B scored 46.7%. LFM2.5-8B-A1B wins this benchmark.

  3. AIME26

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 50.0%B 40.4%
    Winner: LFM2.5-8B-A1BΔ 9.6
    AIME26: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 50.0%; MiniCPM5-1B scored 40.4%. 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-A1BMiniCPM5-1BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensLFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 outputMiniCPM5-1BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableMiniCPM5-1BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableMiniCPM5-1BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensLFM2.5-8B-A1B128KMiniCPM5-1B131KMiniCPM5-1B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BMiniCPM5-1BResult
BFCL v4Source 49.7%25.1%LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 16.1%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BMiniCPM5-1BResult
Terminal-Bench HardSource 4.5%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 7.8%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —22.7%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source —33.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BMiniCPM5-1BResult
AA-LCRSource 0.0%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%—Not comparable
BBHSource —71.9%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BMiniCPM5-1BResult
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
MMLU-ProSource —48.9%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —70.1%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —26.3%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —23.1%Not comparable
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B wins
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BMiniCPM5-1BResult
MATH-500Source 88.8%91.6%MiniCPM5-1B leads
AIME 2025Source 42.5%40.4%LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads
AIME26Source 50.0%40.4%LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads
HMMT Feb 2026Source —25.8%Not comparable
Inst. FollowingLFM2.5-8B-A1B wins
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BMiniCPM5-1BResult
IFEvalSource 91.8%80.4%LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads
IFBenchSource 56.5%46.7%LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads
AA-IFBenchSource 55.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or MiniCPM5-1B?

LFM2.5-8B-A1B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 37 to 36. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFEval, where the scores are 91.8% and 80.4%.

Which is better for math, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or MiniCPM5-1B?

LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 50 versus 33.1. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or MiniCPM5-1B?

LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 68.8 versus 58.5. 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.