Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
Nanbeige4.2-3B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 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 6359 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, 90 against 85
Watch for
Liquid lists it as deprecated, replaced by LFM3-1.7B; deprecated models stay downloadable but get no further updates
Best for Local agents that need tool calling and a long context on a laptop or a small GPU
Ahead on
- Risk, 55 against 50
- Agent interface, 85 against 75
- Documentation and upkeep, 72 against 57
Watch for
Its own architecture: Transformers loads it only with the repository's code
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 Nanbeige4.2-3B +15
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.
Nanbeige4.2-3B 72
Model card 17, Intended use, limitations, the architecture, the parameters (3B outside the embeddings), the context and the languages (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 5, A general description of how the fine-tuning and reinforcement learning data was built and filtered, with no sources, sizes or cut-off. Last change 15, the last commit, on 11 September 2026, updated modeling_nanbeige.py, 60 days before this check and within 90. Responsiveness 20, Of the 34 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (21 July to 10 September 2026), 20 have a reply from a Nanbeige member, which is most. Version policy 5, Nanbeige's earlier models (Nanbeige4-3B, 4.1-3B) stay in their own repositories, as the Base, FP8, 8-bit and DSpark builds of this one do. File health 10, Config, tokenizer config, template and card agree on the architecture and the 262,144 tokens. 17 + 5 + 15 + 20 + 5 + 10 = 72.
Agent interface Nanbeige4.2-3B +10
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.
Nanbeige4.2-3B 85
Chat template 20, A Jinja chat template in tokenizer_config.json (7,961 characters), with enable_thinking, preserve_thinking, tools and tool_call_format switches. Tool-calling format 25, the card says passing tools switches on the tool template and recommends tool_call_format xml, with json for compatibility, and its SGLang and vLLM commands name the nanbeige tool-call parser, which released SGLang 0.5.23 has. Trained tool calling 20, the card describes fine-tuning on tool-use environments and agent scaffolds and reinforcement learning on agent tasks, and the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Neither the card nor the files mention JSON or JSON Schema output, beyond json as a tool-call format. Reasoning control 10, the card documents enable_thinking, on by default and False per request, and preserve_thinking for earlier turns, and names the nanbeige reasoning parser, which returns the reasoning apart from the answer. Context 10, 262,144 tokens, which the card says the model supports and config.json gives as max_position_embeddings. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
Reach LFM2.5-2.6B +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.
Nanbeige4.2-3B 85
Memory 30, the smallest build from Nanbeige is the FP8 repository (the 8-bit GPTQ one is the same size), 5.19 GB, and 5.19 GB × 1.2 = 6.2 GB, within 16 GB. bartowski's GGUF isn't read for this line. Runtimes 15, Released SGLang 0.5.23 has the model (srt/models/nanbeige.py) with its parsers, llama.cpp b12242 has the nanbeige architecture, and vLLM 0.33.0 names NanbeigeForCausalLM in its registry, served through its Transformers backend. Builds 15, Quantised builds from Nanbeige at two precisions, FP8 and 8-bit GPTQ, each in its own repository. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata, an OSI licence, with no use policy or other terms on the card. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for the model and its FP8 and 8-bit repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 0, Hugging Face maps no inference provider to it, and no Nanbeige or BOSS Zhipin API for it was found. 30 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 85.
Risk Nanbeige4.2-3B +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.
Nanbeige4.2-3B 55
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the Nanbeige organisation (Nanbeige LLM Lab), which the lab's arXiv report for this model links, so the publisher's own account, although the Hub hasn't verified it (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 5, General cautions: the limitations section says outputs may be inaccurate, biased or harmful. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, no threshold and no clause letting the licensor change or revoke it. Security programme 5, BOSS Zhipin runs a security response centre for reporting flaws in its products, as read for the Nanbeige4.3-33B listing (5), though nothing links it to the model. 15 + 15 + 0 + 5 + 15 + 5 = 55.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | Nanbeige4.2-3B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 85 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 55 | Nanbeige4.2-3B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 85 | Nanbeige4.2-3B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 72 | Nanbeige4.2-3B +15 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 50.3/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | Nanbeige4.2-3B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) |
| 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 (Hub metadata only; the repository has no LICENSE file) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-11-03 | 2026-09-11 |
| 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
Nanbeige4.2-3B
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.
Nanbeige4.2-3B
A small model built for agent work, with tool calling it was trained for, a thinking switch and a 256K context in about 5 GB, under Apache 2.0, from a lab that answers most questions. Its architecture is its own, so check your runtime: SGLang and llama.cpp have it, Transformers needs the repository's code, and Nanbeige ships no GGUF.
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
Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later and pass
--tool-call-parser nanbeige --reasoning-parser nanbeige - Pass
toolsin the request. The card recommendstool_call_format="xml" - Set
preserve_thinkingtrue for multi-turn tool use and coding, false for plain chat - Use temperature 1.0 for agent and tool work and 0.6 for reasoning and chat, per the card
- For llama.cpp use b12242 or later. The GGUF files on the Hub are bartowski's, not Nanbeige's
- If you load it with Transformers, read modeling_nanbeige.py first: trust_remote_code runs it
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Nanbeige4.2-3B?
Nanbeige4.2-3B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Arete-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Arete-27B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Cola2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cola2 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Devstral Small 2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Devstral Small 2 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Kronos vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kronos vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LBS-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LBS-27B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- 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 LongCat-2.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- 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 North Mini Code 1.0
- 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 OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- 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 SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs SmolLM3-3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- 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
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs ZAYA1-8B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- LongCat-2.5 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Mistral Large 4 vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Nanbeige4.2-3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs North Mini Code 1.0
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs occamy-1.0
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-nanbeige-4-2-3b.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/nanbeige-4-2-3b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b nanbeige-4-2-3b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "nanbeige-4-2-3b"}at/mcp, no key