Instruction following
Directional only- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- 68.8
- o3-mini
- 93.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs o3-mini
Updated August 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
o3-mini has the higher public score estimate, 46.94 versus 41.82, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
o3-mini
o3-mini has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. LFM2.5-8B-A1B does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. LFM2.5-8B-A1B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
6 LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
1 Shared
4 o3-mini only
- Shared results
- 1
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 6
- o3-mini only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- 49.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- 77.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- 50.0
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- Not measured
- o3-mini
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | o3-mini | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction following | 68.8 | 93.9 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 49.3 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 77.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 50.0 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
IFEval
Instruction following
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.0033
- Fits in one request
LFM2.5-8B-A1B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- o3-mini
- $0.0682
- Fits in one request
LFM2.5-8B-A1B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- o3-mini
- $0.286
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
LFM2.5-8B-A1B does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. LFM2.5-8B-A1B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationLFM2.5-8B-A1Bo3-mini
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
128K
o3-mini
200K
API model ID
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
No comparable hosted API rate
o3-mini
Not published
Documented inputs
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Documented outputs
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Provider availability
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Not sourced
o3-mini
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Reasoning
o3-mini
Reasoning
Weight access
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Open Weight
o3-mini
Proprietary
License
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Open Weight
o3-mini
Proprietary
Release date
LFM2.5-8B-A1B
2026-05-28
o3-mini
2025-01-31
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- o3-mini has the higher public score estimate, 46.94 versus 41.82, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- o3-mini has the larger documented window (200K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence11 rows
Agentic
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
LFM2.5-8B-A1B—o3-mini49.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or o3-mini?
o3-mini has the higher public score estimate, 46.94 versus 41.82, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or o3-mini?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or o3-mini?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or o3-mini?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or o3-mini?
o3-mini has the larger documented context window: 200K, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 30, 2026
Watch LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs o3-mini
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.