Data as of October 27, 2026 · How the score is built
Released Oct 27, 2026256K contextLiquid AI LFM3-1.7B model card
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 | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #123 of 134Percentile 8thWeight 22%10 benchmarksVerified | 14.4 | 10 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #142 of 155Percentile 8thWeight 20%6 benchmarksVerified | 13.0 | 6 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified | 61.3 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| KnowledgeRank #175 of 189Percentile 7thWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified | 25.5 | 3 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingRank #76 of 156Percentile 52ndWeight 5%4 benchmarksVerified | 71.7 | 4 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured |
24 of 774 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow 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.
- Agentic10/10 verified
- Coding6/6 verified
- Reasoning1/1 verified
- MultimodalNot measured
- Knowledge3/3 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. Following4/4 verified
- MathNot 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
- Agentic#123/134
- Coding#142/155
- ReasoningNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Knowledge#175/189
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. Following#76/156
- MathNot ranked
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
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SciCodeScientific Code Benchmark | Score28.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1% | Gap31.6 behind | Weight10% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| SWE Multilingual | Score23% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9% | Gap70.9 behind | Weight5% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score12.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap79.9 behind | WeightScored in Agentic | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score43.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap52.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | Score73.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.2% | Gap19.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LiveCodeBench Pro | Score31.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 90.8% | Gap59.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Agentic10 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | Score12.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8% | Gap79.9 behind | Weight8% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| AutomationBench | Score41.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MiniMax M3.1 Flash · 62.2% | Gap20.9 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score32.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark Open · 89.2% | Gap56.6 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| BFCL v4Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard v4 | Score71.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: BTL-3 · 88.5% | Gap17.1 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with tools | Score13.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 70.0% | Gap56.1 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| τ³-bench resultsτ³-Bench Tool-Agent-User Evaluation | Score68.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Mercury 2.5 · 96.0% | Gap28 behind | Weight2% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| WebArena-VerifiedWebArena-Verified Browser Agent Benchmark | Score38.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 69% | Gap30.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ToolSandbox | Score80.36% | Versus best verified row Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 80.36% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Claw-Eval | Score68.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4% | Gap12.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LiveClaw | Score45.60% | Versus best verified row Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 45.60% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Reasoning1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RULER (128K)RULER at 128K context | Score65.56% | Versus best verified row Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 65.56% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Knowledge3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score7.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Kimi K3.1 Pro · 70% | Gap62.8 behind | Weight44% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score63.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96% | Gap32.6 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| GPQA-DGPQA Diamond | Score63.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0% | Gap32.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Inst. Following4 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchInstruction Following Benchmark | Score73.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Flint · 89.2% | Gap16.2 behind | WeightWeighted 70% | Provider exact |
| IFEvalInstruction-Following Eval | Score96.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: LFM2.5-24B-A2B · 96.8% | Gap0.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Multi-IF | Score89.10% | Versus best verified row Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 89.10% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| IFStruct | Score93.72% | Versus best verified row Best verified: LFM3-1.7B · 93.72% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 24 rowsLineage
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.
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
- Context window
- 256KLiquid 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.
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.