Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Arete-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
Arete-27B scores 55.1 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and agent interface. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents that want Qwen3.8-27B's coding and tool use without its handling of politically sensitive topics, on a 24 GB card or a 128 GB machine
Ahead on
- Risk, 55 against 50
- Documentation and upkeep, 63 against 57
Watch for
No quantised build from Nous Research, so the GGUF route depends on a third party
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, 90 against 50
- Agent interface, 75 against 60
Watch for
Liquid lists it as deprecated, replaced by LFM3-1.7B; deprecated models stay downloadable but get no further updates
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Reach LFM2.5-2.6B +40
Arete-27B 50
Memory 10, the only build from Nous Research is the 54.7 GB BF16 release, which needs about 66 GB and fits the reference machine. Runtimes 15, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers run the base's architecture from those files, and llama.cpp isn't credited because Nous Research publishes no GGUF. Builds 0, no quantised build of its own. Terms 15, Apache 2.0. Download 10, not gated. Hosted 0, no provider. 10 + 15 + 0 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 50.
LFM2.5-2.6B 90
Memory earns the full 30, since Liquid's own 4-bit GGUF is 1.59 GB and fits 8 GB with room to spare. Runtimes earn 25, with the lfm2 architecture in released llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers, and in Ollama through the llama.cpp version it pins. Builds earn 15 for Liquid's own GGUF, MLX and ONNX builds at many precisions. Terms earn 10, a custom licence that is free for commercial use under $10M of annual revenue. Download earns 10, with no gate. Hosted earns nothing, as Hugging Face maps no inference provider and Liquid's docs list no hosted API for it.
Agent interface LFM2.5-2.6B +15
Arete-27B 60
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says it. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn and agentic work as an intended use. Structured output 0 and reasoning control 0, neither is documented on the card. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.
LFM2.5-2.6B 75
The chat template earns 20 for chat_template.jinja in the repository. The tool-calling format earns 25, as Liquid's card and tool-use page say how tools go in and how calls come back, and its vLLM and SGLang pages name the lfm2 parser. Trained tool calling earns 20, with several calls in one Python list and agentic RL inside agent harnesses. Structured output earns nothing, as JSON output isn't documented for the model. Reasoning control earns nothing, since the model always thinks. Context earns 10 for 131,072 tokens trained.
Documentation and upkeep Arete-27B +6
Arete-27B 63
Model card 8, no limitations, context length, languages or cut-off. Training data 20, the training pairs and the evaluation set are published with their counts. Last change 20, a commit on 6 November 2026. Responsiveness 0, none of 13 discussions has a reply from Nous Research. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 10, the files agree. 8 + 20 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 63.
LFM2.5-2.6B 57
The model card earns 17, with everything but a knowledge cut-off. Training data earns 5 for a general description without a cut-off. The last change earns 20, a card commit on 3 November 2026 naming LFM3-1.7B as the new version. Responsiveness earns 5, with Liquid replies in 2 of 16 discussions. Version policy earns 5, as Liquid now lists the model as deprecated with a replacement but no date. File health earns 5, since the files agree but a report about the card waits without a reply.
Risk Arete-27B +5
Arete-27B 55
File safety 25, safetensors only and no remote code. Provenance 15, Nous Research's own organisation, linked from its blog, with a hash on every file. Safety evaluation 0 and agent guidance 0, nothing published on either. Licence risk 15, plain Apache 2.0. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 55.
LFM2.5-2.6B 50
File safety earns 25, safetensors and GGUF only, and nothing from the repository runs to load it or build prompts. Provenance earns 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation Liquid links to, with a checksum for every file. Safety evaluation and agent guidance earn nothing, since Liquid publishes neither. Licence risk earns 10, losing 5 for the revenue threshold, with no use policy and no change since release. The security programme earns nothing, since no security.txt, disclosure policy or security contact was found.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Arete-27B | LFM2.5-2.6B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 50 | 90 | LFM2.5-2.6B +40 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 50 | Arete-27B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 75 | LFM2.5-2.6B +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 63 | 57 | Arete-27B +6 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 55.1/100 | D 50.3/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Arete-27B | LFM2.5-2.6B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Nous Research | 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 | 2026-11-06 | 2026-11-03 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | none | 2.5/5 (4) |
How the scores have moved
Arete-27B
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
Arete-27B
Qwen3.8-27B with its answers on politically sensitive topics retrained, four days old when read. The training data is published, which is rare. Nous Research ships BF16 only, so a small machine runs it from bartowski's GGUF, and the card documents none of the tool or thinking controls it inherits.
LFM2.5-2.6B
A small, fast model for tool calls, extraction and long-context steps on a laptop or phone, which Liquid now lists as deprecated in favour of LFM3-1.7B. Liquid's own 4-bit build is 1.6 GB and five common runtimes run it. It always thinks, and organisations over $10M of revenue need another licence. There are no safety results or security contact.
Before you call either
Arete-27B
- Start it with
llama-server -hf bartowski/NousResearch_Arete-27B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, a third party's conversion, or serve the BF16 files with vLLM - Use the base's parsers in vLLM,
--reasoning-parser qwen3 --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, and check tool calls first, since the template differs slightly from Qwen3.8-27B's - Thinking switches with
enable_thinkingin the template. The card's own evaluation ran with it off - Expect answers on politically sensitive topics to differ from Qwen3.8-27B's. That is what the fine-tune is for
- 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, Arete-27B or LFM2.5-2.6B?
Arete-27B scores 55.1 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and agent interface.
Other comparisons with Arete-27B or LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Arete-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Arete-27B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Arete-27B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Arete-27B vs BigBang-v1
- Arete-27B vs Carbon-X
- Arete-27B vs Cosmos-Reason2-2B
- Arete-27B vs Darwin-36B-Opus
- Arete-27B vs DeepSeek-V3.2
- Arete-27B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Arete-27B vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- Arete-27B vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- Arete-27B vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- Arete-27B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- Arete-27B vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- Arete-27B vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Arete-27B vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Arete-27B vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Arete-27B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Arete-27B vs GLM-5.3
- Arete-27B vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Arete-27B vs gpt-oss-120b
- Arete-27B vs gpt-oss-20b
- Arete-27B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- Arete-27B vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Arete-27B vs Granite 4.2 8B
- Arete-27B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- Arete-27B vs Hy3
- Arete-27B vs Inkling
- Arete-27B vs Inkling-Small
- Arete-27B vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Arete-27B vs Kimi K3
- Arete-27B vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- Arete-27B vs Kolibri-1
- Arete-27B vs Kronos
- Arete-27B vs Laguna M.1
- Arete-27B vs Laguna S 2.1
- Arete-27B vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Arete-27B vs LBS-27B
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Arete-27B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Arete-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Arete-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Arete-27B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Arete-27B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Arete-27B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Arete-27B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Arete-27B vs Mistral Large 4
- Arete-27B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Arete-27B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Arete-27B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Arete-27B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Arete-27B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Arete-27B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Arete-27B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Arete-27B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Arete-27B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Arete-27B vs occamy-1.0
- Arete-27B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Arete-27B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Arete-27B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Arete-27B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Arete-27B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Arete-27B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Arete-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Arete-27B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Arete-27B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Arete-27B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Arete-27B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Arete-27B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Arete-27B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Arete-27B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X 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 30B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B 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 K3.1 Pro vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kronos 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
- LBS-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- 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 MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- 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 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Mistral Large 4
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- 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-1.5-122B
- 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 Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- 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 Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- 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)
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/arete-27b-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/arete-27b.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare arete-27b lfm2-5-2-6b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "arete-27b", "b": "lfm2-5-2-6b"}at/mcp, no key