Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M vs Qwen3.5 397B

Updated August 2, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

20 confirmed releases in the last 30 daysSee provider release alerts
LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

LiquidAI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Qwen3.5 397B

Alibaba

56.2/100

Estimated · Public rank #79

90% interval 44.7–67.7

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 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

    Qwen3.5 397B

    Qwen3.5 397B 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-Embedding-350M does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. LFM2.5-Embedding-350M has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K 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-Embedding-350M does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-Embedding-350M has no comparable published API token rate.

    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.

Shared results
0
LFM2.5-Embedding-350M only
2
Qwen3.5 397B only
38
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

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-Embedding-350M
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
56.5
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
LFM2.5-Embedding-350M
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
66.5
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
LFM2.5-Embedding-350M
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
63.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
LFM2.5-Embedding-350M
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
56.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 4 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
LFM2.5-Embedding-350M
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
90.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
LFM2.5-Embedding-350M
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
84.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
LFM2.5-Embedding-350M
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
79.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
LFM2.5-Embedding-350M
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
92.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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-Embedding-350M
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0024
Fits in one request

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0408
Fits in one request

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-Embedding-350M has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.168
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. LFM2.5-Embedding-350M 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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

32K

Qwen3.5 397B

128K

API model ID

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

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-Embedding-350M

No comparable hosted API rate

Qwen3.5 397B

Not published

Documented inputs

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Provider availability

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.5 397B

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

License

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

Release date

LFM2.5-Embedding-350M

2026-06-18

Qwen3.5 397B

2026-02-16

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen3.5 397B has the larger documented window (128K).

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 evidence40 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B52.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B62%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B56.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B51.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B43.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B37.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B36.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B46.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B46.76%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B14.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B76.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B83.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B50.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B70.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B87.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B94.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B93%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B28.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B93.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B94.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B87.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B80.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • NanoBEIR Multilingual

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M57.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MKQA-11

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M69.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-ProX

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B59.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B79%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B88.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B80.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B65.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B95.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    LFM2.5-Embedding-350M—
    Qwen3.5 397B92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, LFM2.5-Embedding-350M or Qwen3.5 397B?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, LFM2.5-Embedding-350M or Qwen3.5 397B?

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-Embedding-350M or Qwen3.5 397B?

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-Embedding-350M or Qwen3.5 397B?

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-Embedding-350M or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the larger documented context window: 128K, compared with 32K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 2, 2026

Watch LFM2.5-Embedding-350M vs Qwen3.5 397B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.