Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) 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 Local agents and coding with image input on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or an Apple silicon laptop, where one tool call per turn is enough
Ahead on
- Capability, 50 against 13
- Risk, 80 against 50
- Documentation and upkeep, 65 against 57
Also in its favour
- Agent-ready, a grade of BB or better
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.8 against 2.5 out of 5
Watch for
One tool call per turn and no parallel calls
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | Muse Glimmer 30B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 13 | 50 | Muse Glimmer 30B +37 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 90 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 80 | Muse Glimmer 30B +30 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 75 | even |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 65 | Muse Glimmer 30B +8 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 51.5/100 | BB 70/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | Meta |
| 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 | yes |
| Last release | 2026-09-22 | 2026-10-20 |
| 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) | 3.8/5 (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.
Muse Glimmer 30B
A dense 30B multimodal cousin for local agent and coding work with images, documented tool calls and adjustable reasoning. Meta's 17 GB GGUF fits a 24 GB card and runs in llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers. The main risks are one tool call per turn, no documented JSON output and a usage policy that adds limits to 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
Muse Glimmer 30B
- Start it with
llama serve -hf meta-models/Muse-Glimmer-30B-GGUF --hf-file Muse-Glimmer-30B-KQuant-17GB-Q4_K_M.gguf -ngl 99 -c 131072 --host 127.0.0.1 --port 8080 --chat-template-kwargs '{"reasoning_strength":"high"}'on llama.cpp b10353 or later, orollama run muse-glimmeron Ollama 0.32.7 or later - In vLLM pass
--tool-call-parser muse_glimmer --reasoning-parser muse_glimmer, in SGLangmusefor both, in ExecuTorch--tool-parser atem. Without them tool calls come back as plain text - Set reasoning per request with
chat_template_kwargs.reasoning_strength(low, medium, high or xhigh). llama.cpp and ExecuTorch don't readreasoning_effort, and ExecuTorch rejects it with a 400 - Expect one tool call per turn and return each result before the next. ExecuTorch's server rejects
tool_choice="required" - Keep temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 64, don't run greedy, and never stop on
<|eom|> - Leave max_tokens room for reasoning, since in llama.cpp a request cut off mid-thought returns empty content with finish_reason length
- For images add Meta's 1.4 GB mmproj GGUF, which takes the build to about 22 GB with the runtime's fifth
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Muse Glimmer 30B scores 70 (BB) 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 Muse Glimmer 30B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- 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 MiniMax-M2.7
- 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 Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs occamy-1.0
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-muse-glimmer-30b.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/muse-glimmer-30b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b muse-glimmer-30b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "muse-glimmer-30b"}at/mcp, no key