Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-27B
Qwen3.8-27B scores 68.6 (B) 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 90
- Agent interface, 75 against 70
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 36
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Best for Agents that want a capable open model with vision on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, with the widest runtime support and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Capability, 70 against 13
- Risk, 55 against 50
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.0 against 2.5 out of 5
Watch for
No safety results, prompt-injection guidance or security contact
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | Qwen3.8-27B | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 13 | 70 | Qwen3.8-27B +57 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 90 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 55 | Qwen3.8-27B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 70 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 36 | LFM2.5-2.6B +21 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 51.5/100 | B 68.6/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | Qwen3.8-27B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2026-08-14 |
| 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) | 3/5 (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.
Qwen3.8-27B
A dense cousin for coding and agent work with image and video input that runs almost anywhere. Ollama's 4-bit build needs about 22 GB, and five providers host it for agents without the hardware. The main risk is that nobody at Alibaba answers, there are no safety results or agent guidance, and the tool format is only in the template.
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
Qwen3.8-27B
- Quickest start is
ollama run qwen3.8, about 18 GB of files - On our reference machine use BF16 with
vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B --max-model-len 131072 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, since FP8 on gfx1151 isn't documented - Use the qwen3_coder tool parser, SGLang's cookbook says the Hermes parser leaves its calls unparsed
- Thinking is on by default, pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, and read the reasoning fromreasoning_content reasoning_efforttakes xhigh (default), medium or low, and any other value makes the template raise an error- Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95 when thinking, temperature 0.7, top_p 0.8 and presence_penalty 1.5 without
- Preserved thinking keeps earlier reasoning in the context unless
preserve_thinkingis false, which grows long agent sessions - Turn on YaRN only beyond 262,144 tokens, the card warns static YaRN can cost quality on short texts
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B scores 68.6 (B) 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 Qwen3.8-27B
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Qwen3.8-27B
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3.8-27B
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs Qwen3.8-27B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- 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 Qwen3.5-9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-27B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.8-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 Qwen3.8-27B
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- occamy-1.0 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Qwen3.8-27B vs SmolLM3-3B
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Qwen3.8-27B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-qwen3-8-27b.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/qwen3-8-27b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b qwen3-8-27b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "qwen3-8-27b"}at/mcp, no key