Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM5-2B
MiniCPM5-2B scores 60.2 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach. 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
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Best for On-device and laptop agents that want a 2 GB tool-calling helper with long context and open training data
Ahead on
- Capability, 27 against 13
- Risk, 55 against 50
- Documentation and upkeep, 97 against 57
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.0 against 2.5 out of 5
Watch for
OpenBMB documents only a Think mode for the 2B, so every answer starts with reasoning
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | MiniCPM5-2B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 13 | 27 | MiniCPM5-2B +14 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 90 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 55 | MiniCPM5-2B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 75 | even |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 97 | MiniCPM5-2B +40 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 51.5/100 | C 60.2/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | MiniCPM5-2B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2026-09-22 | 2026-09-29 |
| 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) | 3/5 (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.
MiniCPM5-2B
A tiny dense cousin for local tool calling and long context, with published training data and an active publisher. OpenBMB's own 4-bit builds need about 2 GB, so it runs on a laptop or phone in vLLM, SGLang, llama.cpp, Ollama or Transformers. The main risks are always-on thinking, no safety results and use conditions beyond Apache 2.0.
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
MiniCPM5-2B
- Smallest start is
ollama run openbmb/minicpm5-2b(1.6 GB, q4_k_m) - On vLLM 0.29.0 or later run
vllm serve openbmb/MiniCPM5-2B --max-model-len 131072 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser minicpm5, or tool calls come back as XML text - On SGLang 0.5.16 or later add
--tool-call-parser minicpm5 --reasoning-parser qwen3; SGLang is OpenBMB's recommended backend for tool calls - Tool calls are XML,
<function name=...><param name=...>, not Hermes JSON - Sample with temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and min_p 0.0; llama.cpp's default min_p 0.05 can loop, and repetition_penalty 1.05 helps if it does
- Expect a
<think>block before every answer and leave room in max_tokens; enable_thinking false is accepted by the template but OpenBMB doesn't support it for the 2B - Validate JSON yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
- Use the main repository's template; the GGUF, MLX and GPTQ copies predate the 29 September fix
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or MiniCPM5-2B?
MiniCPM5-2B scores 60.2 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 3 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or MiniCPM5-2B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs MiniCPM5-2B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniCPM5-2B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs MiniCPM5-2B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- 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 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 MiniCPM5-2B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs MiniCPM5-2B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs MiniMax-M2.5
- MiniCPM5-2B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs occamy-1.0
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- MiniCPM5-2B vs SmolLM3-3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniCPM5-2B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-minicpm5-2b.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/minicpm5-2b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b minicpm5-2b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "minicpm5-2b"}at/mcp, no key