Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5-9B
Qwen3.5-9B scores 60.5 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach, agent interface 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 85
- Agent interface, 75 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 34
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Best for Agents that want a small multimodal tool-calling cousin on a laptop or a 16 GB GPU, under a plain licence
Ahead on
- Capability, 51 against 13
- Risk, 55 against 50
Watch for
No quantised build from Qwen itself
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | Qwen3.5-9B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 13 | 51 | Qwen3.5-9B +38 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 85 | LFM2.5-2.6B +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 55 | Qwen3.5-9B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 70 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 34 | LFM2.5-2.6B +23 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 51.5/100 | C 60.5/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | Alibaba (Qwen team) |
| 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 | 2026-03-02 |
| 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) | 2.5/5 (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.
Qwen3.5-9B
A small dense vision-language cousin with trained tool calling, switchable thinking and a 262,144-token context, for local agent subtasks. Ollama's 4-bit build needs about 8 GB and the BF16 files about 24 GB, in every major runtime. The main risk is neglect, with no file changes since March, no replies from Qwen to reports and no safety results.
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
Qwen3.5-9B
- Smallest start is
ollama run qwen3.5:9b(6.6 GB, q4_k_m) - On vLLM run
vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3.5-9B --port 8000 --max-model-len 262144 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, or tool calls come back as text - Tool calls use the XML style
<tool_call><function=name><parameter=x>, not Hermes JSON, so use the qwen3_coder parser and not hermes - Thinking is on by default; pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, since/nothinkisn't supported - There's no generation_config.json, so pass sampling yourself, temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, top_k 20, presence_penalty 1.5 when thinking, or 0.7, 0.8, 20, 1.5 without
- Keep at least 128K of context when thinking, and turn on YaRN only beyond 262,144 tokens
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Qwen3.5-9B?
Qwen3.5-9B scores 60.5 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 2 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach, agent interface and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or Qwen3.5-9B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Qwen3.5-9B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.5-9B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.5-9B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- 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 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 Qwen3.6-27B
- 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 Qwen3.5-9B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- occamy-1.0 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Qwen3.5-9B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Qwen3.5-9B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-qwen3-5-9b.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/qwen3-5-9b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b qwen3-5-9b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "qwen3-5-9b"}at/mcp, no key