Model comparison
LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs o3
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated; o3 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. LFM2.5-8B-A1B and o3 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to LFM2.5-8B-A1B; 5 to o3.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 6
- o3 only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick o3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 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
o3 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 53 to 37. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for LFM2.5-8B-A1B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. o3 gives you the larger context window at 200K, 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 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Δ | o3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 | Margin← 35.5 | o314.5 |
| Inst. Following | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 | MarginNo overlap | o3Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | o3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | o3$2 input / $8 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | o3118 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | o35.38 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | o3200K | o3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic2 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | o3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.3% | 82.7% | o3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 6.9% | 20.0% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -33.3% | -15.3% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 9.4% | 38.4% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 47.0% | 87.1% | LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 8.3% | 30.4% | o3 leads |
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B wins6 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or o3?
o3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 53 to 37.
Which is better for math, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or o3?
LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 50 versus 14.5. o3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.