Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
Ling-3.0-tiny scores 55 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 1 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
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 90
- Agent interface, 75 against 60
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Best for Agents on a laptop or small GPU that want a fast local model for tool calls and short reasoning, under MIT
Ahead on
- Capability, 31 against 13
Watch for
No hosted provider today, and Ollama support is only an unmerged pull request
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | Ling-3.0-tiny | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 13 | 31 | Ling-3.0-tiny +18 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 90 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 60 | LFM2.5-2.6B +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 56 | LFM2.5-2.6B +1 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 51.5/100 | C 55/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | Ling-3.0-tiny |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | LFM Open License v1.0 (free commercial use below $10M annual revenue) | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-09-22 | 2026-08-31 |
| 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 | 2.5/5 (4) | 2.8/5 (4) |
Verdicts
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.
Ling-3.0-tiny
A small, quick hybrid reasoning cousin for local agent work, tool calls and coding, under MIT. It runs in about 6 GB from inclusionAI's 4-bit GGUF in released Transformers, vLLM, SGLang and llama.cpp, with no host. The main risks are a card that doesn't match the files in places, the vLLM route running repository code, and no model safety results.
Before you call either
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
Ling-3.0-tiny
- Start it with
llama-server -hf inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 32768, which needs llama.cpp b11772 or a recent release with bailingmoe3 - With vLLM 0.32.0,
vllm serve inclusionAI/Ling-3.0-tiny --trust-remote-code --enable-prefix-caching --mamba-cache-mode align --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser ling3 --reasoning-parser ling3, which runs the repository's config code - With SGLang 0.5.22, its cookbook uses
--reasoning-parser deepseek-r1 --tool-call-parser glm45for this model, and drop the card's NEXTN flags since tiny has no MTP layer - Thinking is on by default, pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks - Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20
- The template keeps earlier reasoning in the prompt, which grows long agent sessions
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
- For a guardrail, inclusionAI's Ling-3.0-tiny-singprobe scores intent, unsafe output and hallucination per token, but only through SGLang and vLLM integration branches
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Ling-3.0-tiny?
Ling-3.0-tiny scores 55 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 1 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and agent interface.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or Ling-3.0-tiny
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 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)
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-ling-3-0-tiny.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/lfm2-5-2-6b.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-0-tiny.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b ling-3-0-tiny(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "ling-3-0-tiny"}at/mcp, no key