Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B

Darwin-36B-Opus 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

Darwin-36B-Opus C

Best for Reasoning-heavy text tasks on a 32 GB machine or a single 80 GB GPU, where a disclosed training method isn't required

Ahead on

  • Risk, 55 against 50

Watch for

The merge method is proprietary and the current weights include an undescribed targeted refinement

LFM2.5-2.6B D

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 80
  • Agent interface, 75 against 70
  • Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 51

Watch for

Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runDarwin-36B-OpusLFM2.5-2.6BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%258095LFM2.5-2.6B +15
Risk20%205550Darwin-36B-Opus +5
Agent interface10%107075LFM2.5-2.6B +5
Documentation and upkeep10%105157LFM2.5-2.6B +6
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 61/100D 51.5/100

Facts side by side

FactDarwin-36B-OpusLFM2.5-2.6B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorFINAL-Bench (VIDRAFT)Liquid AI
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue)
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnoyes
Last release2026-04-232026-09-22
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno 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 reviews2.5/5 (4)2.5/5 (4)

Verdicts

Darwin-36B-Opus

A text-only reasoning cousin merged from Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and a reasoning-distilled fine-tune of it, with about 3B active parameters. It needs 32 GB for the publisher's 4-bit GGUF or about 83 GB in BF16, and runs in vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp. The main risks are an undisclosed merge method, a card that disagrees with its files, and no safety results.

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

Darwin-36B-Opus

  1. Quickest start is llama-server -hf FINAL-Bench/POCKET-35B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, about 21 GB of files
  2. On the reference machine BF16 fits, vllm serve FINAL-Bench/Darwin-36B-Opus --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, the parsers for Qwen3.6's format
  3. Thinking is on by default, send chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention
  4. The card suggests temperature 0.6 to 0.7 and at least 5,120 new tokens for its think traces
  5. generation_config.json stops only on the end-of-text token, so add <|im_end|> as a stop token if a runtime keeps generating after the turn ends
  6. Text only, the vision encoder of Qwen3.6-35B-A3B isn't in these files
  7. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

LFM2.5-2.6B

  1. Quickest start is ollama run LiquidAI/lfm2.5-2.6b, 1.7 GB, or llama-cli -hf LiquidAI/LFM2.5-2.6B-GGUF
  2. With vLLM or SGLang pass --tool-call-parser lfm2; for vLLM add --reasoning-parser qwen3 so the thinking comes back separately
  3. Sample at temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition_penalty 1.1, as the card and generation_config.json set
  4. 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
  5. Leave max_tokens unset or generous, since a low cap cuts the reasoning off mid-thought
  6. Earlier thinking is dropped from the prompt unless preserve_thinking is true
  7. Liquid's 328M LFM2.5-2.6B-DSpark drafter speeds decoding about 2.6 times in SGLang and on Apple silicon, per Liquid
  8. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Darwin-36B-Opus or LFM2.5-2.6B?

Darwin-36B-Opus 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 Darwin-36B-Opus or LFM2.5-2.6B

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.