Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniMax-M2.7
MiniMax-M2.7 scores 56.1 (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, risk 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 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 60
- Risk, 50 against 30
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 27
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 2.5 against 1.8 out of 5
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Best for Researchers and personal projects with a 4 to 8 GPU server who want an open agent and coding model with parallel tool calls
Ahead on
- Capability, 71 against 13
Watch for
Commercial use needs MiniMax's written authorisation since a licence swap on 11 April 2026, made without a note
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | MiniMax-M2.7 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 13 | 71 | MiniMax-M2.7 +58 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 60 | LFM2.5-2.6B +35 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 30 | LFM2.5-2.6B +20 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 75 | even |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 27 | LFM2.5-2.6B +30 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 51.5/100 | C 56.1/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | MiniMax-M2.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | MiniMax |
| 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) | MiniMax M2.7 non-commercial licence (MIT-style terms, commercial use needs MiniMax's written authorisation) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-09-22 | 2026-04-20 |
| 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) | 1.8/5 (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.
MiniMax-M2.7
A 230B mixture-of-experts model for coding and agent harnesses, with parallel tool calls, about 200K of context and parsers in vLLM and SGLang. It needs a 4 GPU server for FP8 or about 166 GB for a 4-bit library build, and it always thinks. The main risk is the licence, switched to non-commercial two days after release.
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
MiniMax-M2.7
- Check the use is personal, research or non-profit before starting it; anything commercial needs MiniMax's written authorisation, and commercial users must show Built with MiniMax M2.7
- Start it with vLLM on 4 GPUs of 96 GB, SAFETENSORS_FAST_GPU=1 vllm serve MiniMaxAI/MiniMax-M2.7 --trust-remote-code --tensor-parallel-size 4 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser minimax_m2 --reasoning-parser minimax_m2_append_think
- In SGLang use --tool-call-parser minimax-m2 and --reasoning-parser minimax-append-think, with --trust-remote-code
- MiniMax's guides budget 220 GB for the weights and 240 GB per 1M tokens of KV cache, with 196K the most per sequence
- On one large-memory machine, LM Studio's catalogue entry minimax/minimax-m2.7 lists a 138 GB Q4_K_M GGUF and states 138 GB minimum memory
- Sample with temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 40, as the card recommends, and budget output tokens for thinking on every turn
- Pin Transformers 4.57.1 as MiniMax's guide does; a report that it fails on Transformers v5 has no answer
- Without the hardware, call it through Novita, Featherless AI or DeepInfra; MiniMax's own API retires M2.7 on 18 November 2026
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or MiniMax-M2.7?
MiniMax-M2.7 scores 56.1 (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, risk and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or MiniMax-M2.7
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs MiniMax-M2.7
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs MiniMax-M2.7
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs MiniMax-M2.7
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- 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 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 MiniMax-M2.7
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniCPM5-2B vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs occamy-1.0
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs SmolLM3-3B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-minimax-m2-7.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/minimax-m2-7.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b minimax-m2-7(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "minimax-m2-7"}at/mcp, no key