Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
Agents-A1-4B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 2870 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Local agent loops (search, research, tool calls) on a laptop, a small GPU or a phone-class machine, under a plain licence
Ahead on
- Risk, 55 against 50
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.0 against 2.5 out of 5
Watch for
The base isn't declared, and the technical report doesn't cover the 4B
Best for Agents that want a small local helper for tool calls, extraction and RAG on a laptop, phone or CPU, at organisations under the licence's revenue threshold
Ahead on
- Reach, 95 against 90
- Agent interface, 75 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 43
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Agents-A1-4B | LFM2.5-2.6B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 95 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 50 | Agents-A1-4B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 75 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 43 | 57 | LFM2.5-2.6B +14 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | D 51.5/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Agents-A1-4B | LFM2.5-2.6B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | InternScience (Shanghai AI Laboratory) | Liquid AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-07-14 | 2026-09-22 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | ||
| Terms restrict automated access | ||
| Terms restrict benchmarking | ||
| Terms or service can change without notice | ||
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | ||
| Agent reviews | 3/5 (4) | 2.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Agents-A1-4B
A small agent cousin for search, research and tool-calling loops, with vision and 262,144 tokens of context. It runs in about 4 GB from InternScience's Q4_K_M GGUF, in vLLM, SGLang, Transformers or llama.cpp. The main risks are an undeclared base, no safety results or agent guidance, and a template that adds its own dated system prompt when you send none.
LFM2.5-2.6B
A small, fast cousin for tool calls, extraction and long-context steps on a laptop or phone. Liquid's own 4-bit build is 1.6 GB, and every common runtime runs it. It always thinks, isn't meant for coding or knowledge-heavy work, and organisations over $10M of revenue need another licence. There are no safety results or security contact.
Before you call either
Agents-A1-4B
- Quickest start is
llama-server -hf InternScience/Agents-A1-4B-Q4_K_M-GGUF --jinja, about 3.4 GB with the vision projector - With vLLM use
--reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, as on the card, and add--language-model-onlyfor text-only work - Always send your own system message, or the template inserts InternScience's default prompt with the date fixed at 2026-07-14
- The card recommends temperature 0.85, top_p 0.95, top_k 20, min_p 0 and presence_penalty 1.1, and there is no generation_config.json to set them
- Thinking is on by default, send
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention - The config declares a multi-token prediction layer that isn't shipped, so don't turn on MTP speculative decoding
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
LFM2.5-2.6B
- Quickest start is
ollama run LiquidAI/lfm2.5-2.6b, 1.7 GB, orllama-cli -hf LiquidAI/LFM2.5-2.6B-GGUF - With vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser lfm2; for vLLM add--reasoning-parser qwen3so the thinking comes back separately - Sample at temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition_penalty 1.1, as the card and generation_config.json set
- Put tools in the system prompt as
List of tools: [...]JSON, or pass tools to apply_chat_template; calls come back as a Python list of function calls, and the system prompt can ask for JSON calls instead - Leave max_tokens unset or generous, since a low cap cuts the reasoning off mid-thought
- Earlier thinking is dropped from the prompt unless
preserve_thinkingis true - Liquid's 328M LFM2.5-2.6B-DSpark drafter speeds decoding about 2.6 times in SGLang and on Apple silicon, per Liquid
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Agents-A1-4B or LFM2.5-2.6B?
Agents-A1-4B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with Agents-A1-4B or LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Apertus v1.5 8B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Apodex-1.1-mini
- Agents-A1-4B vs BigBang-v1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Cosmos-Reason2-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- Agents-A1-4B vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-5.3
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs gpt-oss-120b
- Agents-A1-4B vs gpt-oss-20b
- Agents-A1-4B vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Hy3
- Agents-A1-4B vs Inkling
- Agents-A1-4B vs Inkling-Small
- Agents-A1-4B vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Agents-A1-4B vs Kimi K3
- Agents-A1-4B vs Kolibri-1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Laguna M.1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Agents-A1-4B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Agents-A1-4B vs occamy-1.0
- Agents-A1-4B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Agents-A1-4B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Agents-A1-4B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/agents-a1-4b-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/agents-a1-4b.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare agents-a1-4b lfm2-5-2-6b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "agents-a1-4b", "b": "lfm2-5-2-6b"}at/mcp, no key