Model comparison
LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: LFM2.5-8B-A1B unranked; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #25
BenchAlign evidence: LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. LFM2.5-8B-A1B and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to LFM2.5-8B-A1B; 19 to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 5
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 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
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 37. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 93.4 against 68.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFEval, 91.8% to 93.4%.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B gives you the larger context window at 262K, 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 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inst. Following | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 | Margin→ 24.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4 |
| Agentic | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B56.4 |
| Coding | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B72.0 |
| Reasoning | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2 |
| Knowledge | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B83.6 |
| Math | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot measured |
| Multilingual | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2 |
| Multimodal | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
IFEval
Inst. FollowingA 91.8%B 93.4%Winner: Qwen3.5-122B-A10BΔ 1.6IFEval: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 91.8%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 93.4%. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 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 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B262K | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BFCL v4Source | 49.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 16.1% | 93.6% | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 49.4% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 63.8% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 58% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 20.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 978 | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.3% | 85.7% | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 6.9% | 23.4% | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -33.3% | -39.6% | LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 9.4% | 24.7% | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 47.0% | 85.5% | LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 8.3% | 32.3% | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.7% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 37. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFEval, where the scores are 91.8% and 93.4%.
Which is better for instruction following, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 93.4 versus 68.8. Inside this category, AA-IFBench 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.