Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Kronos vs LFM3-1.7B
LFM3-1.7B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Kronos's 55.2 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Kronos leads on risk. 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
Kronos C
Best for Agents that need a quick local forecast or synthetic sample of a candlestick series on modest hardware, for research or as one input among others.
Ahead on
- Risk, 50 against 40
Watch for
Runs only through the publisher's own PyTorch code from GitHub, in no named runtime and with no quantised build
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 55
- Agent interface, 100 against 60
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 61
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.
Agent interface LFM3-1.7B +40
Kronos 60
Read for a forecasting model, the tool-calling, trained tool calling and structured-output lines stand for what it takes and returns. The card documents the DataFrame and timestamps it takes and the DataFrame it returns, and the publisher's KronosPredictor builds and parses them (25). It was trained on six K-line fields with calendar fields, one series per forecast (10). Output is a typed DataFrame indexed by the requested timestamps, the mean of the sampled paths (15). The input format is given only as code (10). Reasoning control and context score 0, with no reasoning and a 512-bar context (2,048 for Kronos-mini).
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.
Reach LFM3-1.7B +30
Kronos 55
Memory 30, the publisher's Kronos-mini with its tokeniser is 0.03 GB and even Kronos-base is 0.43 GB in FP32. Runtimes 0, it runs only through the publisher's own PyTorch package from GitHub, and none of the six named runtimes supports it. Builds 0, FP32 safetensors only. Terms 15, MIT with nothing added. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, no inference provider or publisher API serves it (provider mapping still empty on 4 November).
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.
Risk Kronos +10
Kronos 50
File safety 15, safetensors only, but the only documented loading path is the publisher's Python package in place of a runtime. Provenance 15, the files are in the NeoQuasar account the publisher's README links, with SHA-256 hashes. Safety evaluation 0, none published. Agent guidance 5, the README's general cautions that the fine-tuning pipeline isn't a production trading system. Licence risk 15, plain MIT; the broken licence link is charged to file health. Security programme 0, no reporting route found.
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.
Documentation and upkeep LFM3-1.7B +6
Kronos 61
Model card 11, intended use, architecture, parameters and context are there, limitations, languages and a cut-off aren't. Training data 20, the paper lists every exchange with asset and observation counts, the filtering and a June 2024 end. Last change 5, the reference code on 13 April 2026 (still the newest commit on 4 November, 205 days) and the Hub repositories on 9 September 2025. Responsiveness 20, the publisher answered 10 of 18 Hugging Face discussions (recounted by script on 4 November), though none since 24 November 2025, and the seven opened since April 2026 have no reply from it. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 0, the cards point to example data the repository has deleted and to licence and requirements links on a branch that doesn't exist.
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.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Kronos | LFM3-1.7B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 55 | 85 | LFM3-1.7B +30 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 40 | Kronos +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 100 | LFM3-1.7B +40 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 61 | 67 | LFM3-1.7B +6 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 55.2/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Kronos | LFM3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Yu Shi (shiyu-coder, NeoQuasar), Tsinghua University | 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 | 2026-04-13 | 2026-11-09 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Popularity | 43k stars | none |
Verdicts
Kronos
Forecasts the next price bars from a history of up to 512 candlestick bars. Every size fits in under 0.5 GB and runs on a CPU, but only through the publisher's own Python package. Nobody has benchmarked it independently, its quickstart data was deleted from the repository, and the publisher hasn't replied since November 2025.
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
Kronos
- Clone https://github.com/shiyu-coder/Kronos and
pip install -r requirements.txt, then loadKronos.from_pretrained("NeoQuasar/Kronos-small")andKronosTokenizer.from_pretrained("NeoQuasar/Kronos-Tokenizer-base")and wrap them in KronosPredictor - Pair Kronos-mini with Kronos-Tokenizer-2k and Kronos-small or Kronos-base with Kronos-Tokenizer-base, the cards' pairing
- The examples read examples/data/XSHG_5min_600977.csv, which no longer exists; point them at tests/data/regression_input.csv, 2,500 five-minute bars
- Keep the lookback at or under max_context, 512 bars, and pass the future timestamps you want as y_timestamp, since the calendar fields come from them
- Raise sample_count for a steadier forecast, but expect only the mean back; call the lower-level auto_regressive_inference yourself if you need the paths
- Treat forecasts as model output to check, not signals; the README says its own backtest pipeline isn't a production trading system
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, Kronos or LFM3-1.7B?
LFM3-1.7B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against Kronos's 55.2 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Kronos leads on risk.
Other comparisons with Kronos or LFM3-1.7B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Kronos
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Kronos
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Kronos
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM3-1.7B
- Arete-27B vs Kronos
- Arete-27B vs LFM3-1.7B
- BigBang-v1 vs Kronos
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Carbon-X vs Kronos
- Carbon-X vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cola2 vs Kronos
- Cola2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Kronos
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Kronos
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Kronos
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kronos
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Kronos
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Devstral Small 2 vs Kronos
- Devstral Small 2 vs LFM3-1.7B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Kronos
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Kronos
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Kronos
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Kronos
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Kronos
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Kronos
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Kronos
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Kronos
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Kronos
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Kronos
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-5.3 vs Kronos
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Kronos
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM3-1.7B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Kronos
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Kronos
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Kronos
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Kronos
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Kronos
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM3-1.7B
- Hy3 vs Kronos
- Hy3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling-Small vs Kronos
- Inkling-Small vs LFM3-1.7B
- Inkling vs Kronos
- Inkling vs LFM3-1.7B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Kronos
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Kronos
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kimi K3 vs Kronos
- Kimi K3 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kolibri-1 vs Kronos
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM3-1.7B
- Kronos vs Laguna M.1
- Kronos vs Laguna S 2.1
- Kronos vs Laguna XS 2.1
- Kronos vs LBS-27B
- Kronos vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kronos vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- Kronos vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- Kronos vs LFM3-VL-2B
- Kronos vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs LongCat-2.5
- Kronos vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Kronos vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- Kronos vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Kronos vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kronos vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Kronos vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Kronos vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Kronos vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Kronos vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Kronos vs Mistral Large 4
- Kronos vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Kronos vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Kronos vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Kronos vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Kronos vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Kronos vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Kronos vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Kronos vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Kronos vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Kronos vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Kronos vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Kronos vs occamy-1.0
- Kronos vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Kronos vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kronos vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Kronos vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Kronos vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Kronos vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- Kronos vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Kronos vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Kronos vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Kronos vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Kronos vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Kronos vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Kronos vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Kronos vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Kronos vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Kronos vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Kronos vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Kronos vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Kronos vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Kronos vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Kronos vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Kronos vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Kronos vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Kronos vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Kronos vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Kronos vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Kronos vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Kronos vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Kronos vs Recursive Flint
- Kronos vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Kronos vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- Kronos vs SmolLM3-3B
- Kronos vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Kronos vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kronos vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Kronos vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Kronos vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Kronos vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Kronos vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Kronos vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Kronos vs ZAYA1-8B
- 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/kronos-vs-lfm3-1-7b.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/kronos.json·/api/v1/tools/lfm3-1-7b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare kronos lfm3-1-7b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "kronos", "b": "lfm3-1-7b"}at/mcp, no key