Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
Ornith-1.5-122B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach 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
- Reach, 90 against 75
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 36
Watch for
Liquid lists it as deprecated, replaced by LFM3-1.7B; deprecated models stay downloadable but get no further updates
Best for Local coding and terminal agents on a 128 GB unified-memory machine or a 96 GB GPU setup, where a clear licence file and an answering publisher aren't required
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 85 against 75
Watch for
No LICENSE file though the card links one, and no notice for the Apache 2.0 Qwen3.5 and Gemma 4 work it builds on
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 +21
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.
Ornith-1.5-122B 36
Model card 11, it covers intended use, architecture, parameters and context but not limitations, languages or a knowledge cut-off. Training data 5, a description of the method with no data or cut-off. Last change 20, a folder upload to the MLX builds on 24 October 2026, 17 days ago. Responsiveness 0, Ornith answered none of the 5 questions and reports. Version policy 0, the MLX builds were uploaded a second time four days after the first with no note. File health 0, the card links a missing LICENSE, states hardware its own files don't fit and names a variant that doesn't exist, and the two chat templates differ. 11 + 5 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 36.
Reach LFM2.5-2.6B +15
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.
Ornith-1.5-122B 75
Memory 10, since Ornith's own MLX 4-bit build is 69.7 GB and needs about 83.6 GB with the fifth added, over 64 GB and inside the reference machine's 107.4 GB, as do its Q4_K_M GGUF, its NVFP4 build and Ollama's build. Runtimes 25, the most the line gives, from vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23, Transformers 5.22.2, llama.cpp's qwen35moe architecture, Ollama's library and LM Studio's catalogue for the qwen35moe architecture. Builds 15, Ornith publishes FP8, NVFP4, GGUF and MLX at several precisions. Terms 15, MIT as named in the card's metadata, with nothing added, read by its terms though the repository has no licence file. Download 10, nothing is gated. Hosted 0, Ornith runs no API and no inference provider serves it. 10 + 25 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 75.
Agent interface Ornith-1.5-122B +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.
Ornith-1.5-122B 85
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, the card shows how tools go in and how calls come back and names the parser for vLLM and SGLang. Trained tool calling 20, Ornith trains it on agent tasks and the template renders several calls in one turn. Structured output 0, not documented or claimed. Reasoning control 10, Ornith's template reads enable_thinking per request and the card says the reasoning comes back in reasoning_content, though the card doesn't name the switch. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | Ornith-1.5-122B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 75 | LFM2.5-2.6B +15 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 85 | Ornith-1.5-122B +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 36 | LFM2.5-2.6B +21 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 50.3/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | Ornith-1.5-122B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | Ornith |
| 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) | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-11-03 | 2026-10-24 |
| 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
Ornith-1.5-122B
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.
Ornith-1.5-122B
The largest Ornith that fits a 128 GB machine, a coding and terminal-agent cousin on Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's architecture with XML tool calls and 262,144 tokens of context. Its 4-bit builds need 84 to 93 GB. The main risk is an absent publisher, with no licence file, safety results or replies, and a card that misstates the hardware.
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
Ornith-1.5-122B
- Start it with
ollama run ornith-1.5:122b-q4_K_M, orllama-server -hf ornith-ai/Ornith-1.5-122B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja -c 262144 - Budget about 92 GB for the Q4_K_M GGUF with a working context, and less context if the machine has under 100 GB for the model
- In vLLM pass
--enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_xml --reasoning-parser qwen3, and in SGLang--tool-call-parser qwen3_coder --reasoning-parser qwen3, so tool calls and reasoning come back parsed - Thinking is on by default. Send
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, a switch the card doesn't mention - Pin which template your runtime loads, since chat_template.jinja keeps earlier reasoning and the tokenizer_config.json template drops it
- Use temperature 0.6, top_p 0.95, top_k 20 for coding and temperature 1.0 for general tasks, as the card recommends
- Add mmproj-Ornith-1.5-122B-BF16.gguf (0.9 GB) for image input in llama.cpp, and validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Ornith-1.5-122B?
Ornith-1.5-122B scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 50.3 (D), and leads in 1 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or Ornith-1.5-122B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Arete-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Arete-27B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Kronos vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kronos vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LBS-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LBS-27B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- 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 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 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 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 Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Mistral Large 4 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- occamy-1.0 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-ornith-1-5-122b.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/ornith-1-5-122b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b ornith-1-5-122b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "ornith-1-5-122b"}at/mcp, no key