Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on 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 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
- Agent interface, 75 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 48
Watch for
Liquid lists it as deprecated, replaced by LFM3-1.7B; deprecated models stay downloadable but get no further updates
Best for Agents that need a cheap local model to read screenshots, photos and short video on a phone, a laptop or beside a bigger model
Ahead on
- Reach, 95 against 90
- Risk, 55 against 50
Watch for
No limitations section, safety results, agent-use guidance or security contact
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 LFM2.5-2.6B +9
LFM2.5-2.6B 57
The model card earns 17, with everything but a knowledge cut-off. Training data earns 5 for a general description without a cut-off. The last change earns 20, a card commit on 3 November 2026 naming LFM3-1.7B as the new version. Responsiveness earns 5, with Liquid replies in 2 of 16 discussions. Version policy earns 5, as Liquid now lists the model as deprecated with a replacement but no date. File health earns 5, since the files agree but a report about the card waits without a reply.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 48
Model card 8, Intended use (image, multi-image and video understanding on device), architecture (early visual-token compression inside the vision encoder) and parameters (1B) are there. Training data 0, no description of the training data on the card. Last change 20, the last commit, on 30 October 2026, updated the card and removed an unused asset folder, eleven days before this check. Responsiveness 0, the repository has no discussions that aren't pull requests (two pull requests in all), so nobody has asked anything yet and the line reads as none answered, as settled in calibration. Version policy 10, MiniCPM-V 4.5 and 4.6 stay in their own repositories and the GitHub README dates each release. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the thinking switch, and no report waits without a reply, since there are no discussions. 8 + 0 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 48.
Reach MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +5
LFM2.5-2.6B 90
Memory earns the full 30, since Liquid's own 4-bit GGUF is 1.59 GB and fits 8 GB with room to spare. Runtimes earn 25, with the lfm2 architecture in released llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers, and in Ollama through the llama.cpp version it pins. Builds earn 15 for Liquid's own GGUF, MLX and ONNX builds at many precisions. Terms earn 10, a custom licence that is free for commercial use under $10M of annual revenue. Download earns 10, with no gate. Hosted earns nothing, as Hugging Face maps no inference provider and Liquid's docs list no hosted API for it.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 95
Memory 30, OpenBMB's own IQ4_XS GGUF is 0.64 GB, 1.54 GB with the 0.90 GB vision projector, and 1.54 GB × 1.2 = 1.9 GB, which fits 16 GB with room to spare. Runtimes 25, MiniCPMV4_7ForConditionalGeneration in vLLM's registry at v0.33.0, the minicpmv4_7 model type in SGLang's minicpmv.py at v0.5.23, the minicpmv4_7 model in Transformers at v5.22.2, a MiniCPM-V 4.7 guide and conversion code in llama.cpp at b12242, and an openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:1b tag in OpenBMB's namespace on Ollama, read as the 35B-A3B listing's is. Builds 15, OpenBMB publishes AWQ, GPTQ and int4 safetensors builds and a GGUF repository from IQ3_XS to F16, so quantised builds at two precisions or more. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata and as the LICENSE of OpenBMB's MiniCPM-V repository, an OSI licence. Download 10, gated is false on the main repository and on the GGUF, AWQ, GPTQ and int4 repositories, so the files download with no account or terms. Hosted 0, Hugging Face lists no inference provider for the model (an empty provider mapping on 10 November 2026), and no provider's own list was read. 30 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 95.
Risk MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +5
LFM2.5-2.6B 50
File safety earns 25, safetensors and GGUF only, and nothing from the repository runs to load it or build prompts. Provenance earns 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation Liquid links to, with a checksum for every file. Safety evaluation and agent guidance earn nothing, since Liquid publishes neither. Licence risk earns 10, losing 5 for the revenue threshold, with no use policy and no change since release. The security programme earns nothing, since no security.txt, disclosure policy or security contact was found.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 55
File safety 25, safetensors in the main repository and the AWQ, GPTQ and int4 builds, GGUF in the GGUF build, with no .bin, .pt, .pth or .py files in the main repository. Provenance 15, files in the openbmb organisation that OpenBMB's GitHub README links to (10), with a SHA-256 for both large files in the main repository (5). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations or disclaimer section, and no prompt-injection guidance, instruction hierarchy or statement of trained refusals. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, field-of-use limit, threshold or change clause, nothing is added on the card, and the LICENSE in OpenBMB's GitHub repository resolved on 10 November 2026. Security programme 0, no SECURITY.md in OpenBMB/MiniCPM-V and no security.txt on openbmb.cn (both 404 on 10 November 2026), and no advisories found. 25 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 55.
Agent interface LFM2.5-2.6B +5
LFM2.5-2.6B 75
The chat template earns 20 for chat_template.jinja in the repository. The tool-calling format earns 25, as Liquid's card and tool-use page say how tools go in and how calls come back, and its vLLM and SGLang pages name the lfm2 parser. Trained tool calling earns 20, with several calls in one Python list and agentic RL inside agent harnesses. Structured output earns nothing, as JSON output isn't documented for the model. Reasoning control earns nothing, since the model always thinks. Context earns 10 for 131,072 tokens trained.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B 70
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository, 7,249 characters. Tool-calling format 10, the card shows tools declared in the OpenAI tools array in a request to Transformers' server, but not how a call comes back, and names no parser for vLLM or SGLang. Trained tool calling 20, the template loops over tool_calls, so it renders several calls in one assistant turn, and the card gives a tool-calling request as a supported use. Structured output 0, Neither JSON nor JSON Schema output is documented or claimed for the model on the card. Reasoning control 10, the card passes enable_thinking per request in its examples, the template has been off by default since 19 October 2026, and the GGUF repository keeps thinking builds in their own folder. Context 10, 262,144 tokens, max_position_embeddings in the text config. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 70.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 95 | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 55 | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 70 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 48 | LFM2.5-2.6B +9 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 50.3/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | OpenBMB |
| 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) | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-11-03 | 2026-10-30 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
LFM2.5-2.6B
A small, fast model for tool calls, extraction and long-context steps on a laptop or phone, which Liquid now lists as deprecated in favour of LFM3-1.7B. Liquid's own 4-bit build is 1.6 GB and five common runtimes run it. It always thinks, and organisations over $10M of revenue need another licence. There are no safety results or security contact.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
A vision-language cousin small enough for a phone, under plain Apache 2.0, that every runtime we count can load. The projector is bigger than the language model, so plan for about 2 GB. The card says nothing about limits or training data and doesn't show how a tool call comes back.
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
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Start it with
llama-server -hf openbmb/MiniCPM-V-4.7-1B-gguf:Q4_K_M --jinja, orollama run openbmb/minicpm-v4.7:1b - For image input in llama.cpp add
mmproj-model-f16.gguf, or the smaller 4x projector - The GGUF files at the repository root have thinking off. Use the files in
thinking/when you want the trace - Use temperature 0.7, top_p 0.95 and top_k 100 in instruct mode, as the card recommends
- Check tool calls in your runtime first, since the card names no parser
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B?
MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Arete-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Arete-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Kronos vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kronos vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LBS-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LBS-27B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-1.7B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs LFM3-VL-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- 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 MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- 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 MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Mistral Large 4
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- 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-1.5-122B
- 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 Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- 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 Recursive Flint
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- 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)
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- LFM3-1.7B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Mistral Large 4
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs occamy-1.0
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs SmolLM3-3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-minicpm-v-4-7-1b.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/minicpm-v-4-7-1b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b minicpm-v-4-7-1b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "minicpm-v-4-7-1b"}at/mcp, no key