Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 59 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 1 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach 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 Teams with a multi-GPU server who want DeepSeek's agent model under MIT, with the hosted API as a fallback.
Ahead on
- Capability, 69 against 13
Watch for
510.3 GB of files and no smaller build anywhere, so it won't fit the 107.4 GB reference machine
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 50
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 48
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | LFM2.5-2.6B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 69 | 13 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash +56 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 50 | 95 | LFM2.5-2.6B +45 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 75 | even |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 48 | 57 | LFM2.5-2.6B +9 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 59/100 | D 51.5/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | LFM2.5-2.6B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | DeepSeek | Liquid AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-17 | 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 | 2.8/5 (4) | 2.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
A large multimodal agent model with a 1M-token context, documented tool calls, JSON Schema output and a reasoning budget, under MIT. It needs about 612 GB of memory across several GPUs in vLLM or SGLang. The main risks are prompts built from DeepSeek's code rather than a template, no published safety results and no answers in its repositories.
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 $10M of revenue need another licence. There are no safety results or security contact.
Before you call either
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek's reference run is its inference folder, convert.py with --model-parallel 8 --expert-dtype fp4, then torchrun --nproc-per-node 8 generate.py --ckpt-path "$SAVE_PATH" --config config.json --interactive
- In vLLM 0.32.0 the parsers are named deepseek_v41 for both --tool-call-parser and --reasoning-parser. That's vLLM's naming, DeepSeek doesn't document a vLLM command
- Build prompts with encoding.py or pip install deepseek-recipe, not the September repository's chat_template.jinja, which an open pull request says trails the 16 October encoding
- Tool calls come back in a DSML calls block with a space before calls, invoke and parameter, unlike V4
- Set reasoning_effort to 1 to 100, or low, high or max (50, 75, 100), in thinking mode only. Default is 75
- Sample at temperature 1.0 and top_p 1.0 and allow 256K or more output tokens, as the card recommends
- Without the hardware, call DeepSeek's API as deepseek-flash, which serves this exact update
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, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or LFM2.5-2.6B?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores 59 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 1 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Hy3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling-Small
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kimi K3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kolibri-1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna M.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs occamy-1.0
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- 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/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/deepseek-v4-1-flash.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare deepseek-v4-1-flash lfm2-5-2-6b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "deepseek-v4-1-flash", "b": "lfm2-5-2-6b"}at/mcp, no key