Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
GLM-5.3 scores 64.6 (B) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and agent interface. 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
GLM-5.3 B
Best for Teams with an 8-GPU server who want an open coding and long-horizon agent model with a 1M-token context, or agents that call it through Z.ai or a hosted provider
Ahead on
- Capability, 80 against 13
Watch for
Z.ai's smallest build is 755.6 GB in FP8, with no local Ollama or LM Studio build
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 55
- Agent interface, 75 against 70
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | GLM-5.3 | LFM2.5-2.6B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 80 | 13 | GLM-5.3 +67 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 55 | 95 | LFM2.5-2.6B +40 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 70 | 75 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 58 | 57 | GLM-5.3 +1 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | B 64.6/100 | D 51.5/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | GLM-5.3 | LFM2.5-2.6B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | GLM-5.3 License (MIT-style, with a security review for the largest model-as-a-service operators) | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-10-14 | 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
GLM-5.3
A large coding and long-horizon agent model with a 1M-token context, several tool calls per turn and three reasoning budgets. Z.ai's smallest build is 756 GB in FP8, so it needs an 8-GPU server, Z.ai's API or a provider. The main risks are no published safety work, no way to report a flaw, and thinking that can't be turned off.
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
GLM-5.3
- Start it with
vllm serve zai-org/GLM-5.3 --kv-cache-dtype fp8 --tensor-parallel-size 8 --speculative-config.method mtp --speculative-config.num_speculative_tokens 5 --tool-call-parser glm47 --reasoning-parser glm47 --enable-auto-tool-choice --served-model-name glm-5.3(vLLM 0.28.0 or later, 8xH200 or 8xH20 per vLLM's recipe) - Use the glm47 tool-call and reasoning parsers in vLLM or SGLang; SGLang's cookbook says glm45 leaves the calls as plain text
- Pass
chat_template_kwargs: {"reasoning_effort": "low"}for short tasks; anything other than low or high falls back to max - Pass
clear_thinking: truein chat use, since the template keeps earlier reasoning by default - Don't send
enable_thinking: false; the template ignores it and always opens a think block - Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output is documented only for Z.ai's hosted API
- No Z.ai build fits a 128 GB machine; the full 1M context needs 8xB200 per vLLM's recipe
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, GLM-5.3 or LFM2.5-2.6B?
GLM-5.3 scores 64.6 (B) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and agent interface.
Other comparisons with GLM-5.3 or LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-5.3
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs GLM-5.3
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs GLM-5.3
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs GLM-5.3
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs GLM-5.3
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-5.3
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs GLM-5.3
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs GLM-5.3
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-5.3
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-5.3 vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-5.3 vs gpt-oss-20b
- GLM-5.3 vs Granite 4.2 3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Hy3
- GLM-5.3 vs Inkling
- GLM-5.3 vs Inkling-Small
- GLM-5.3 vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- GLM-5.3 vs Kimi K3
- GLM-5.3 vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-5.3 vs Laguna M.1
- GLM-5.3 vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-5.3 vs Laguna XS 2.1
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-5.3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- GLM-5.3 vs occamy-1.0
- GLM-5.3 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- GLM-5.3 vs SmolLM3-3B
- GLM-5.3 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-5.3 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-5.3 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- 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/glm-5-3-vs-lfm2-5-2-6b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/glm-5-3.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare glm-5-3 lfm2-5-2-6b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "glm-5-3", "b": "lfm2-5-2-6b"}at/mcp, no key