Skip to main content

Model comparison

LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

41.25/100
Margin
18.2pts
winning →
59.44/100
1 category wins0 category wins

BenchAlign evidence: LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. LFM2.5-8B-A1B and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to LFM2.5-8B-A1B; 10 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
12
LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
6
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
10
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.

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

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 68 to 37. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
CategoryLFM2.5-8B-A1BΔQwen 3.6 Max (preview)
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0Margin 31.6Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4
AgenticLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4
CodingLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0
KnowledgeLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9
Inst. FollowingLFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8MarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensLFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 outputQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensLFM2.5-8B-A1B128KQwen 3.6 Max (preview)256KQwen 3.6 Max (preview) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
BFCL v4Source 49.7%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 16.1%95.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 59.0%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource 1532Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
Terminal-Bench HardSource 4.5%43.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 7.8%46.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 57.3%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 47%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 42.9%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
AA-LCRSource 0.0%69.7%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
CritPtSource 0.0%3.7%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 51.3%88.8%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-HLESource 6.9%28.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -33.3%10.2%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 9.4%37.7%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 47.0%44.2%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 8.3%40.0%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
SuperGPQASource 73.9%Not comparable
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B wins
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
MATH-500Source 88.8%Not comparable
AIME 2025Source 42.5%Not comparable
AIME26Source 50.0%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 23.103%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
IFEvalSource 91.8%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 56.5%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 55.6%76.6%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 68 to 37.

Which is better for math, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 50 versus 18.4. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

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.