Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-1.7B
EXAONE 4.5 33B and LFM3-1.7B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). LFM3-1.7B 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 6359 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Researchers and students working on documents, Korean or multimodal agents who don't need commercial rights
Ahead on
- Risk, 50 against 40
Watch for
Research and education only. No commercial use of the model or its output
Best for Agents on a laptop, phone or small server that need tool calling and a long context from a model under 2 GB at 4 bits
Ahead on
- Reach, 85 against 65
- Agent interface, 100 against 85
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 50
Watch for
vLLM and SGLang have no released support, though the card lists both
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 LFM3-1.7B +20
EXAONE 4.5 33B 65
Memory 20, the smallest build at 4 bits is LG's IQ4_XS GGUF, 18.03 GB with the 2.57 GB projector, and 20.60 GB × 1.2 = 24.7 GB, within 32 GB. Without the projector, for text only, it would fit 24 GB. Runtimes 15, Released vLLM 0.33.0 has exaone4_5.py, Transformers 5.22.2 has the exaone4_5 model, and llama.cpp b12242 has the architecture, with LG's own GGUF. Three at 5 each. Builds 15, LG publishes GGUF at five quantised precisions, an AWQ build and an FP8 build. Terms 5, Research and educational use only. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for all four repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no click-through, though the licence says downloading is acceptance. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it, and the card names no API that serves it. 20 + 15 + 15 + 5 + 10 + 0 = 65.
LFM3-1.7B 85
Memory 30, Liquid's Q4_K_M GGUF is 1.10 GB, and 1.10 GB × 1.2 = 1.3 GB, which fits 8 GB, well inside the 16 GB line. Runtimes 15, Released llama.cpp has the lfm3 architecture (src/models/lfm3.cpp at b12242), Ollama's library has an lfm3 entry, and LM Studio's catalogue runs the architecture (its liquid/lfm3-vl-2b entry; lmstudio-community publishes a GGUF of this model). Builds 15, Liquid's GGUF repository holds Q4_0, Q4_K_M, Q8_0, F16 and BF16 files, and Liquid publishes 4-bit and 8-bit MLX builds and an ONNX repository, all in the LiquidAI organisation. Terms 10, the LFM Open License v1.0, a custom licence that lets anyone use it commercially for free below a threshold of $10M annual revenue. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its GGUF, MLX and ONNX repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, Liquid's own API lists lfm3-1.7b among its models, so the publisher hosts it. 30 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 85.
Documentation and upkeep LFM3-1.7B +17
EXAONE 4.5 33B 50
Model card 20, Uses (the quickstart's question answering, document and agent examples), limitations, the architecture, the parameters, the context, the languages (in the metadata) and a knowledge cut-off of December 2024 are all on the card. Training data 5, A knowledge cut-off and one line on excluding personal, harmful and biased content, with no sources or sizes. Last change 10, the main repository last changed on 6 July 2026 (dependencies moved to official releases), 127 days before this check, and the FP8 repository on 9 August, 93 days. Responsiveness 0, none of the 5 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (13 April to 4 May 2026) has a reply from an LGAI-EXAONE member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, EXAONE 4.0 and 4.0.1 stay in their own repositories and 4.5 came out in new ones, with no dated note on the older cards that we read. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the 262,144 tokens, and a July commit moved the dependencies to released versions. 20 + 5 + 10 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 50.
LFM3-1.7B 67
Model card 17, Intended use (local agents, tool calling, structured outputs, fine-tuning), a limitation (not recommended for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning), architecture (24 layers: 13 gated short convolutions, 5 sliding-window and 6 global attention), parameters (1.73B), context (256K) and 16 languages. Training data 5, A general description: 22T tokens of pre-training in two stages with the kinds of data added since LFM2, 1.75T tokens of supervised fine-tuning, then mixed reinforcement learning, distillation from six specialist teachers and agentic reinforcement learning. Last change 20, the last commit, on 9 November 2026, added the OpenVINO checkpoint to the card's inference table, a day before this check. Responsiveness 10, Of the 22 discussions that aren't pull requests (27 October to 8 November 2026), 7 have a reply from a LiquidAI member, which is some. Version policy 5, LFM3 came out in new repositories and the LFM2.5 models stay in theirs. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the lfm3 architecture, the 262,144-token context and the thinking switch. 17 + 5 + 20 + 10 + 5 + 10 = 67.
Agent interface LFM3-1.7B +15
EXAONE 4.5 33B 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (5,930 characters). Tool-calling format 25, the card's vLLM command names the parser, hermes with auto tool choice, and its agentic example calls tools from MCP servers through the OpenAI-compatible API, so declaration and return follow that API. Trained tool calling 20, the card reports agentic tool use among its language results and shows an agent run with several tool servers, and the template renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Nothing on the card about JSON or schema-constrained output. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking is on by default and the card says to set it false for the non-reasoning mode, with an example of each. Context 10, 262,144 tokens per the card's configuration table and config.json, and the card's serve commands run at that length. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
LFM3-1.7B 100
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (12,129 characters), with roles, tools, deferred tools, tool results and the thinking switch. Tool-calling format 25, the card and Liquid's tool-use page document tools passed through tools= in apply_chat_template, calls returned as XML and results sent back as tool messages. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over every entry in an assistant turn's tool_calls, so several calls fit in one turn, and the card says the model was trained on tool calls and agentic traces and with reinforcement learning inside agent harnesses. Structured output 15, Liquid's API guide documents response_format with a JSON Schema, with lfm3-1.7b as the model in its examples, and says the schema is checked before generation starts. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking=False in the chat template to turn reasoning off per request, with reasoning on by default inside think tags, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, which says the mid-training stage extended the context window to 256K, and max_position_embeddings 262144 in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 15 + 10 + 10 = 100.
Risk EXAONE 4.5 33B +10
EXAONE 4.5 33B 50
File safety 25, safetensors and GGUF only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files and no Python in the repository. Provenance 15, the files sit in the LGAI-EXAONE organisation (LG AI Research on the Hub), which the card's GitHub repository shares a name with and the licence in the repository is LG's (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 5, General cautions: the limitation section lists inappropriate, biased, incorrect and outdated answers and tells users not to try to induce harmful output. Licence risk 5, 15 less 5 for field-of-use limits beyond the law (no commercial use, no building competing models) and 5 for terms the licensor can change or revoke (LG may amend the agreement at any time, and the licence is revocable). Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw on the card beyond a support contact, and www.lgresearch.ai has no security.txt. 25 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 5 + 0 = 50.
LFM3-1.7B 40
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation, which Liquid's docs page for the model and its blog post link to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card or in Liquid's blog post for the LFM3 family, neither of which mentions safety testing. Agent guidance 0, Nothing on prompt injection, an instruction hierarchy, what refusals cover or safeguards to add. Licence risk 10, 15 less 5 for the $10M annual revenue threshold on commercial use. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw found. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 10 + 0 = 40.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | EXAONE 4.5 33B | LFM3-1.7B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 65 | 85 | LFM3-1.7B +20 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 40 | EXAONE 4.5 33B +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 100 | LFM3-1.7B +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 50 | 67 | LFM3-1.7B +17 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 61/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | EXAONE 4.5 33B | LFM3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | LG AI Research | Liquid AI |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | EXAONE AI Model License Agreement 1.2 - NC (research and education only) | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-07-06 | 2026-11-09 |
| Terms last updated | not read yet | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
Verdicts
EXAONE 4.5 33B
A well-documented vision-language model with a full set of builds, tool calling, switchable reasoning, a 256K context and a stated knowledge cut-off. The licence decides whether you can use it: research and education only, output included, and LG can change the terms. Nothing answered on the repository and no safety results.
LFM3-1.7B
A 1.73B model that fits an 8 GB machine with room to spare, with a documented tool-call format, deferred tools, a thinking switch and a 256K context. It runs today in llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio only, loads in Transformers through repository code, and has no safety results, security contact or data sources.
Before you call either
EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Don't use it, or anything it writes, commercially. The licence covers the output too
- Serve it with vLLM and
--reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser hermes - Set
enable_thinkingfalse for a direct answer. Thinking is on by default - Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and presence_penalty 1.5 in general, and temperature 0.6 with top_k 20 for documents and Korean
- For llama.cpp, load a projector file from LG's GGUF repository with the weights for image input
- Its knowledge stops at December 2024
LFM3-1.7B
- Start it with
llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-1.7B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinjaorollama run lfm3 - Use temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition penalty 1.1 for chat, tools and agents, per the card
- Pass
enable_thinking=Falsefor direct answers, and expect it to reason anyway on hard tasks - For a large tool catalogue mark tools
defer_loadingand give it a search tool - Don't plan on vLLM or SGLang until a release carries LFM3
- Liquid doesn't recommend it for agentic coding or complex multi-step reasoning
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, EXAONE 4.5 33B or LFM3-1.7B?
EXAONE 4.5 33B and LFM3-1.7B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 61 (C). LFM3-1.7B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with EXAONE 4.5 33B or LFM3-1.7B
- Agents-A1-4B vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM3-1.7B
- Arete-27B vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- BigBang-v1 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Carbon-X vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cola2 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Cola2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Devstral Small 2 vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- Devstral Small 2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs EXAONE 4.5 33B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 12B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 31B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs GLM-4.5-Air
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs GLM-5.3
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs gpt-oss-120b
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs gpt-oss-20b
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Granite 4.2 30B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Granite 4.2 3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Granite 4.2 8B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Hy3
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Inkling
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Inkling-Small
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Kimi K3
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Kolibri-1
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Kronos
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Laguna M.1
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Laguna S 2.1
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Laguna XS 2.1
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LBS-27B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LongCat-2.5
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Mistral Large 4
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs occamy-1.0
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Recursive Flint
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs SmolLM3-3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs ZAYA1-8B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling vs LFM3-1.7B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kronos vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- LBS-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs LongCat-2.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Mistral Large 4
- LFM3-1.7B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM3-1.7B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LFM3-1.7B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- LFM3-1.7B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM3-1.7B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LFM3-1.7B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- LFM3-1.7B vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- LFM3-1.7B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-1.7B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- LFM3-1.7B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- LFM3-1.7B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LFM3-1.7B vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/exaone-4-5-33b-vs-lfm3-1-7b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/exaone-4-5-33b.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm3-1-7b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare exaone-4-5-33b lfm3-1-7b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "exaone-4-5-33b", "b": "lfm3-1-7b"}at/mcp, no key