Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Data as of October 27, 2026 · How the score is built

LFM3-1.7B

Decision readingLFM3-1.7B scores 23 out of 100 and ranks #215 of 230. This profile shows 24 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Instruction Following at #76. Published weights can be self-hosted, but infrastructure cost varies and is not a comparable API token rate.

Released Oct 27, 2026 — see all recent releases

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Capability

23/100

field median 50.2#215 of 230 ranked models

Public

#215of 230

Verified —

Price

Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies

input median $0.75No comparable first-party hosted token rate

Speed

Not measured

field median 96 tok/sTime to first token not measured

Context

256Ktokens

field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately

Strongest published evidence

Instruction Following ranks #76. A well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Validate before choosing

24 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.

Source-linked · 24 displayable benchmark rows

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #123 of 134Percentile 8thWeight 22%10 benchmarksVerified
14.4
CodingRank #142 of 155Percentile 8thWeight 20%6 benchmarksVerified
13.0
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified
61.3
MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
KnowledgeRank #175 of 189Percentile 7thWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified
25.5
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
Inst. FollowingRank #76 of 156Percentile 52ndWeight 5%4 benchmarksVerified
71.7
MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured

24 of 774 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100

Coverage details

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic10/10 verified
  2. Coding6/6 verified
  3. Reasoning1/1 verified
  4. MultimodalNot measured
  5. Knowledge3/3 verified
  6. MultilingualNot measured
  7. Inst. Following4/4 verified
  8. MathNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Capability shape

Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.

LFM3-1.7B category percentile values

  • Agentic8th percentile
  • Coding8th percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • MultimodalNot eligible
  • Knowledge7th percentile
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Instruction following52nd percentile
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#123/134
  2. Coding#142/155
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. MultimodalNot ranked
  5. Knowledge#175/189
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Inst. Following#76/156
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

Benchmark ledger

Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.

Coding6 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SciCodeScientific Code BenchmarkScore28.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1%

Gap31.6 behindWeight10% ref. weight
SWE MultilingualScore23%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9%

Gap70.9 behindWeight5% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench 2.1Score12.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap79.9 behindWeightScored in Agentic
SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark VerifiedScore43.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96%

Gap52.6 behindWeightDisplay only
LiveCodeBench v6Score73.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.2%

Gap19.7 behindWeightDisplay only
LiveCodeBench ProScore31.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 90.8%

Gap59.1 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic10 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
Terminal-Bench 2.1Score12.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap79.9 behindWeight8% ref. weight
AutomationBenchScore41.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: MiniMax M3.1 Flash · 62.2%

Gap20.9 behindWeight6% ref. weight
MCP AtlasScore32.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 89.2%

Gap56.6 behindWeight4% ref. weight
BFCL v4Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard v4Score71.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: BTL-3 · 88.5%

Gap17.1 behindWeight3% ref. weight
HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with toolsScore13.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 70.0%

Gap56.1 behindWeight3% ref. weight
τ³-bench resultsτ³-Bench Tool-Agent-User EvaluationScore68.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Mercury 2.5 · 96.0%

Gap28 behindWeight2% ref. weight
WebArena-VerifiedWebArena-Verified Browser Agent BenchmarkScore38.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 69%

Gap30.6 behindWeightDisplay only
ToolSandboxScore80.36%Versus best verified row

Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 80.36%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Claw-EvalScore68.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4%

Gap12.8 behindWeightDisplay only
LiveClawScore45.60%Versus best verified row

Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 45.60%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Reasoning1 row
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
RULER (128K)RULER at 128K contextScore65.56%Versus best verified row

Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 65.56%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Knowledge3 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLEHumanity's Last ExamScore7.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 70%

Gap62.8 behindWeight44% ref. weight
GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&AScore63.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96%

Gap32.6 behindWeight3% ref. weight
GPQA-DGPQA DiamondScore63.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0%

Gap32.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Inst. Following4 rows
Inst. Following benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
IFBenchInstruction Following BenchmarkScore73.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Flint · 89.2%

Gap16.2 behindWeightWeighted 70%
IFEvalInstruction-Following EvalScore96.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: LFM2.5-24B-A2B · 96.8%

Gap0.1 behindWeightDisplay only
Multi-IFScore89.10%Versus best verified row

Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 89.10%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
IFStructScore93.72%Versus best verified row

Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 93.72%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only

Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value

All 24 rows

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Oct 27, 2026 · you are here

    LFM3-1.7B

    Score 23.0 · Price not listed

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

API model ID
LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7BLiquid AI LFM3-1.7B model card
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
Not sourced yet
Output modalities
Not sourced yet
Parameters
Not sourced yet
Availability
Liquid AI publishes the 1.73B-parameter text model under the LFM Open License v1.0 on Hugging Face, with BF16, FP8, NVFP4, GGUF, MLX and ONNX checkpoints and a 262,144-token context. Liquid says it fits in about 1 GB at 4-bit precision and lists the Liquid API, its Playground and OpenRouter as launch channels; no hosted token price is published yet. Reasoning is on by default.
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
Lifecycle
Current
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Not documented in the pricing recordLiquid AI LFM3-1.7B model card
Self-host
LFM3-1.7B needs ~24GB VRAM (1× NVIDIA RTX 4090 (24GB)).
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

LFM3-1.7B ranks #215 of 230 on the public leaderboard with a score of 22.99/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.

LFM3-1.7B is a open weight model with a 256K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.

Liquid AI publishes the 1.73B-parameter text model under the LFM Open License v1.0 on Hugging Face, with BF16, FP8, NVFP4, GGUF, MLX and ONNX checkpoints and a 262,144-token context. Liquid says it fits in about 1 GB at 4-bit precision and lists the Liquid API, its Playground and OpenRouter as launch channels; no hosted token price is published yet. Reasoning is on by default.

LFM3-1.7B sits in the LFM3 family with LFM3-Audio-2B, LFM3-Omni-2B, LFM3-1.7B-Base. 24 of 774 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Instruction Following at #76, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #175. a well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Last updated October 27, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Deployment options

Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

LFM3-1.7B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$298
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Questions

How does LFM3-1.7B perform overall in AI benchmarks?

LFM3-1.7B ranks #215 out of 230 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 22.99/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 24 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is LFM3-1.7B good for knowledge and understanding?

LFM3-1.7B ranks #175 out of 189 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 25.5/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is LFM3-1.7B good for coding and programming?

LFM3-1.7B ranks #142 out of 155 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 13/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is LFM3-1.7B good for reasoning and logic?

LFM3-1.7B has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is LFM3-1.7B good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

LFM3-1.7B ranks #123 out of 134 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 14.4/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is LFM3-1.7B good for instruction following?

LFM3-1.7B ranks #76 out of 156 eligible models for instruction following, with a public category score of 71.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is LFM3-1.7B open source?

LFM3-1.7B is an open-weight model from LiquidAI. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.

Which sibling models are related to LFM3-1.7B?

LFM3-1.7B belongs to the LFM3 family. Related tracked variants include LFM3-Audio-2B, LFM3-Omni-2B, LFM3-1.7B-Base. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.

Does LFM3-1.7B have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. LFM3-1.7B currently has 28 source-displayable rows. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of LFM3-1.7B?

LFM3-1.7B has a documented context window of 256K. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.

Watch LFM3-1.7B in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Compare LFM3-1.7B with every tracked model999 comparisons