Model comparison
LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs o3-mini
Head-to-head evidence from 7 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated; o3-mini supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. LFM2.5-8B-A1B and o3-mini share 7 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to LFM2.5-8B-A1B; 4 to o3-mini.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 7
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 11
- o3-mini only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick o3-mini if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 7 shared benchmark results across 4 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-mini is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 52 to 37. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o3-mini's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 93.9 against 68.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFEval, 91.8% to 93.9%.
o3-mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.10 input / $4.40 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-mini 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-mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inst. Following | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 | Margin→ 25.1 | o3-mini93.9 |
| Coding | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | o3-mini49.3 |
| Knowledge | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | o3-mini77.2 |
| Math | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 | MarginNo overlap | o3-miniNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
IFEval
Inst. FollowingA 91.8%B 93.9%Winner: o3-miniΔ 2.1IFEval: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 91.8%; o3-mini scored 93.9%. o3-mini wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | o3-mini | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | o3-mini$1.1 input / $4.4 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | o3-mini160 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | o3-mini7.12 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | o3-mini200K | o3-mini lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic2 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.3% | 74.8% | o3-mini leads |
| AA-HLESource | 6.9% | 8.7% | o3-mini leads |
| 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% | 19.0% | o3-mini leads |
| MMLUSource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or o3-mini?
o3-mini is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 52 to 37. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFEval, where the scores are 91.8% and 93.9%.
Which is better for instruction following, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or o3-mini?
o3-mini has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 93.9 versus 68.8. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.