Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
Gemma 4 E2B IT scores 60.4 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 4 of 5 scored categories. 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 Agents that need a cheap, permissively licensed helper on 8 GB of memory, for tool calls, short audio or images, rather than hard reasoning
Ahead on
- Capability, 19 against 13
- Risk, 70 against 50
- Agent interface, 85 against 75
- Documentation and upkeep, 75 against 57
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.5 out of 5
Watch for
No safety evaluation figures published
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
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Gemma 4 E2B IT | LFM2.5-2.6B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 19 | 13 | Gemma 4 E2B IT +6 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 95 | even |
| Risk | 20%20 | 70 | 50 | Gemma 4 E2B IT +20 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 75 | Gemma 4 E2B IT +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 75 | 57 | Gemma 4 E2B IT +18 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 60.4/100 | D 51.5/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Gemma 4 E2B IT | LFM2.5-2.6B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Google DeepMind | 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 | yes | yes |
| Last release | 2026-07-20 | 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 | 3.5/5 (4) | 2.5/5 (4) |
Verdicts
Gemma 4 E2B IT
A small cousin for light agent work, tool-calling loops, transcription and image reading on a phone or laptop, under Apache 2.0. Google's 4-bit build needs about 5 GB with working space and runs in all the common runtimes. Google's card puts it far below larger Gemma 4 sizes on agent and coding tasks, with no published 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
Gemma 4 E2B IT
- On the reference machine run
llama-server -hf google/gemma-4-E2B-it-qat-q4_0-gguf --hf-file gemma-4-E2B_q4_0-it.gguf --jinja -c 131072, and add--mmprojwith gemma-4-E2B-it-mmproj.gguf for images and audio - With Ollama run
ollama run gemma4:e2band raise num_ctx or OLLAMA_CONTEXT_LENGTH, since the default context is small and agents want at least 64K - In vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser gemma4 --reasoning-parser gemma4(vLLM also--enable-auto-tool-choice), or tool calls come back as text; Google's w4a16 build is the 4-bit route there - Thinking is off by default; pass enable_thinking=True or start the system prompt with <|think|>, and drop earlier turns' thinking from history except on tool-call turns
- Put images before the text and audio after it, keep audio to 30 seconds and video to 60 frames, and validate tool names and arguments before running them
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, Gemma 4 E2B IT or LFM2.5-2.6B?
Gemma 4 E2B IT scores 60.4 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 4 of 5 scored categories.
Other comparisons with Gemma 4 E2B IT or LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Gemma 4 E2B IT
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Gemma 4 E4B IT
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs gpt-oss-120b
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs gpt-oss-20b
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Granite 4.2 3B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Hy3
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Inkling
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Inkling-Small
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Kimi K3
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Kolibri-1
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Laguna M.1
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Laguna S 2.1
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs occamy-1.0
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs SmolLM3-3B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- 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/gemma-4-e2b-it-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/gemma-4-e2b-it.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare gemma-4-e2b-it lfm2-5-2-6b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "gemma-4-e2b-it", "b": "lfm2-5-2-6b"}at/mcp, no key