Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
LFM2.5-VL-450M
0
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
59
Pick Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-VL-450M only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Knowledge
+36.0 difference
Inst. Following
+15.3 difference
LFM2.5-VL-450M
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
$0 / $0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
128K
128K
Pick Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-VL-450M only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 0. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 57.6 against 21.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 25.7% to 57.6%.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking is the reasoning model in the pair, while LFM2.5-VL-450M is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 0. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 25.7% and 57.6%.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.6 versus 21.6. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 76.5 versus 61.2. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.