Model comparison
LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: LFM2.5-8B-A1B unranked; Qwen3.6 Plus #14
BenchAlign evidence: LFM2.5-8B-A1B estimated; Qwen3.6 Plus supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. LFM2.5-8B-A1B and Qwen3.6 Plus share 15 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to LFM2.5-8B-A1B; 46 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 3
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 46
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus 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 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 63 to 37. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 82.3 against 68.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME26, 50.0% to 95.3%.
Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inst. Following | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 | Margin→ 13.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
| Math | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 | Margin→ 10.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Agentic | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Coding | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Reasoning | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Knowledge | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus57.5 |
| Multilingual | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Multimodal | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 50.0%B 95.3%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 45.3AIME26: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 50.0%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 95.3%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFBench
Inst. FollowingA 56.5%B 75.8%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 19.3IFBench: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 56.5%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 75.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFEval
Inst. FollowingA 91.8%B 94.3%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 2.5IFEval: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 91.8%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 94.3%. Qwen3.6 Plus 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Qwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BFCL v4Source | 49.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 16.1% | 97.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 61.6% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 58.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.6% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 31.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1135 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 50.60% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 4.5% | 43.9% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 7.8% | 40.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 54.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 51.3% | 88.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 6.9% | 25.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -33.3% | 2.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 9.4% | 26.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 47.0% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 8.3% | 39.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6 Plus wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MATH-500Source | 88.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME 2025Source | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | 50.0% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 26.207% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 8.333% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81.5% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.0% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1254 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 37. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME26, where the scores are 50.0% and 95.3%.
Which is better for math, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.5 versus 50. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 82.3 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.