Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-VL-2B
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against LFM3-VL-2B's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. LFM3-VL-2B 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 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents and developers who want a small, permissively licensed tool-calling model on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, in almost any runtime
Ahead on
- Risk, 55 against 40
Watch for
No change to the files since 29 January 2026 and no zai-org reply on discussions since 31 January
Best for Agents on a laptop, phone or robot that need to read screens, documents, images and video from a model under 2 GB at 4 bits
Ahead on
- Reach, 85 against 80
- Agent interface, 90 against 85
- Documentation and upkeep, 77 against 28
Watch for
vLLM and SGLang support is unreleased, which the card says itself
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.
Documentation and upkeep LFM3-VL-2B +49
GLM-4.7-Flash 28
The card covers architecture, parameters and languages and misses four of the seven items, for 8. Training data is 0, as the card describes none. The last change was on 1 February 2026 at the latest, within a year but past 180 days, for 5. Responsiveness is 5, since zai-org answered 6 of the 40 most recent discussions, all by 31 January, which is a few. Version policy is 5 for a first release with no files replaced, and file health is 5, as config.json and tokenizer_config.json disagree on context and a config report waits without a reply.
LFM3-VL-2B 77
Model card 17, Intended use (questions about video, documents, charts and app screens, finding objects, spatial reasoning), a limitation (not recommended for coding, multi-turn conversations or complex reasoning), architecture (language model, 14-layer vision encoder and projector), parameters (1.92B), context (128K) and 16 languages. Training data 5, A general description: the base's 22T tokens of pre-training with the kinds of data added since LFM2, then vision mid-training on image and video data, supervised fine-tuning, vision reinforcement learning and distillation. 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 20, Of the 5 discussions that aren't pull requests (27 to 31 October 2026), 3 have a reply from a LiquidAI member, which is most. 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_vl architecture, the 128,000-token context and the vision settings in processor_config.json. 17 + 5 + 20 + 20 + 5 + 10 = 77.
Risk GLM-4.7-Flash +15
GLM-4.7-Flash 55
File safety is full, with safetensors only and the card loading it through Transformers' own code without remote code. Provenance is full, files in the zai-org organisation Z.ai links from GitHub with a SHA-256 for every shard. Safety evaluation and agent guidance are 0, as nothing is published on either. Licence risk is the full 15, since MIT adds no policy, threshold or changeable terms, though the repository carries no LICENSE file. The security programme is 0, with no security.txt, no SECURITY file and no advisories found.
LFM3-VL-2B 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.
Reach LFM3-VL-2B +5
GLM-4.7-Flash 80
Memory earns 25, since Ollama's smallest build is the 19 GB q4_K_M one, about 22.8 GB with the fifth added, which fits 24 GB. Runtimes reach the cap of 25, with model code in released vLLM, SGLang and Transformers, a converter in a released llama.cpp build and a local entry in Ollama's library. Builds earn nothing, because Z.ai publishes only BF16 and every quantised build is someone else's. The MIT licence with nothing added gives the full 15 for terms, the files download with no account or gate for 10, and Z.ai plus three other providers serve it for 5.
LFM3-VL-2B 85
Memory 30, Liquid's Q4_K_M GGUF is 1.10 GB with its 0.20 GB projector file, and 1.30 GB × 1.2 = 1.6 GB, which fits 8 GB, well inside the 16 GB line. Runtimes 15, Released llama.cpp has the lfm3 architecture and the LFM3-VL projector (src/models/lfm3.cpp and tools/mtmd at b12242), Ollama's library has an lfm3-vl entry, and LM Studio's catalogue lists liquid/lfm3-vl-2b. 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-vl-2b among its models, so the publisher hosts it. 30 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 85.
Agent interface LFM3-VL-2B +5
GLM-4.7-Flash 85
A Jinja chat template sits in the repository, for 20. The tool-calling format is the full 25, because Z.ai itself names the glm47 parser for vLLM and SGLang, says tools are declared in OpenAI style and shows calls coming back as tool_calls. The template takes several calls in one turn, for 20. Structured output is 0, with nothing on the card and only the hosted API documented for JSON. Reasoning control is 10, thinking turned off per request with enable_thinking and the reasoning returned by the glm45 parser. Context is 10, 202,752 positions native with no rope scaling.
LFM3-VL-2B 90
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (12,129 characters), with roles, images and video, 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 its fine-tuning mix included tool calling and agentic traces. Structured output 5, the card's vLLM and SGLang commands set a structured-output backend and its fine-tuning table has a JSON extraction notebook, but nothing says how to ask this model for JSON. Liquid's API guide documents response_format with lfm3-1.7b as its example. Reasoning control 10, Liquid's chat-template page documents enable_thinking=False in apply_chat_template for LFM3, with reasoning on by default inside think tags, and the card documents preserve_thinking and reports a no-thinking configuration in its benchmarks. Context 10, 128K tokens of input and output per the card, and max_position_embeddings 128000 for the language model in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 5 + 10 + 10 = 90.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | GLM-4.7-Flash | LFM3-VL-2B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 80 | 85 | LFM3-VL-2B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 55 | 40 | GLM-4.7-Flash +15 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 90 | LFM3-VL-2B +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 28 | 77 | LFM3-VL-2B +49 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 63/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | GLM-4.7-Flash | LFM3-VL-2B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | 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 | 2026-01-29 | 2026-11-09 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | none |
Verdicts
GLM-4.7-Flash
A small MIT-licensed mixture-of-experts model with about 3B active parameters, for local agent and coding work with several tool calls per turn and optional thinking. It runs in Ollama at about 23 GB and in nearly every common runtime. The main risk is neglect, with no changes or replies since early February and no safety results.
LFM3-VL-2B
A 1.92B vision model that reads images and video on an 8 GB machine, with a documented tool-call format and thinking. It runs today in llama.cpp, Ollama and LM Studio, while vLLM and SGLang support is still unreleased. Transformers needs repository code, and there are no safety results, security contact or data sources.
Before you call either
GLM-4.7-Flash
- On our reference machine start it with
vllm serve zai-org/GLM-4.7-Flash --max-model-len 65536 --tool-call-parser glm47 --reasoning-parser glm45 --enable-auto-tool-choice --served-model-name glm-4.7-flash - Or run
ollama run glm-4.7-flashfor the 19 GB q4_K_M build - Without the glm47 and glm45 parsers, tool calls and reasoning come back as plain text
- Use a released vLLM (0.32.0 or later) or SGLang (0.5.22 or later); the card's nightly and pull-request builds date from January 2026
- Pass
chat_template_kwargs: {"enable_thinking": false}for short tasks, since thinking is on by default - Set
clear_thinking: falseto keep earlier reasoning in multi-turn agent work, as Z.ai does for τ²-Bench and Terminal Bench - Set the context length yourself, since config.json allows 202,752 tokens and tokenizer_config.json says 128,000
LFM3-VL-2B
- Start it with
llama-server -hf LiquidAI/LFM3-VL-2B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinjaorollama run lfm3-vl, with llama.cpp b11960 or later - Use temperature 0.1, top_k 50 and repetition penalty 1.1, per the card
- Video is sampled at 2 frames a second up to 768 frames, and each frame costs context. Video input in llama.cpp needs ffmpeg
- Don't plan on vLLM or SGLang until a release carries LFM3-VL
- Validate JSON output yourself
- Liquid doesn't recommend it for coding, multi-turn conversations or complex reasoning
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, GLM-4.7-Flash or LFM3-VL-2B?
GLM-4.7-Flash scores 63 (B) on agent readiness against LFM3-VL-2B's 61 (C), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. LFM3-VL-2B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with GLM-4.7-Flash or LFM3-VL-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Arete-27B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- BigBang-v1 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Carbon-X vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM3-VL-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-VL-2B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM3-VL-2B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-VL-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs gpt-oss-20b
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Granite 4.2 8B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Hy3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Inkling-Small
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kimi K3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kronos
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna M.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Laguna XS 2.1
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Mistral Large 4
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs occamy-1.0
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ripple-65B Preview
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs SmolLM3-3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM3-VL-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-VL-2B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Hy3 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Inkling vs LFM3-VL-2B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Kronos vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LBS-27B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM3-1.7B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Mistral Large 4
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Recursive Flint
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- LFM3-VL-2B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- LFM3-VL-2B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/glm-4-7-flash-vs-lfm3-vl-2b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/glm-4-7-flash.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm3-vl-2b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare glm-4-7-flash lfm3-vl-2b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "glm-4-7-flash", "b": "lfm3-vl-2b"}at/mcp, no key