Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
Qwen3-Coder-Next scores 57.6 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 1 of 5 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 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
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 41
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Best for Agents that want a local coding model for long tool-calling loops on a single 64 GB to 128 GB machine.
Ahead on
- Capability, 42 against 13
Watch for
No LICENSE file anywhere and a broken licence link on the card
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | Qwen3-Coder-Next | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%35 | 13 | 42 | Qwen3-Coder-Next +29 |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 85 | LFM2.5-2.6B +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 50 | even |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 75 | even |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 41 | LFM2.5-2.6B +16 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 51.5/100 | C 57.6/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | Qwen3-Coder-Next |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2026-02-03 |
| 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) | 2.8/5 (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.
Qwen3-Coder-Next
A fast coding cousin for agent harnesses, with 3B active parameters and tool calling trained across many scaffold formats for Claude Code, Cline or Qwen Code loops. Alibaba's 4-bit GGUF needs about 58 GB, fitting one 64 GB machine, and two providers host it. The main risk is neglect, with no change since February, no replies 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-Coder-Next
- Quickest start is
ollama run qwen3-coder-next(Q4_K_M, 52 GB of files) - On our reference machine Alibaba's Q8_0 GGUF (84.8 GB, about 102 GB in use) also fits, run with
llama-server -m Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8_0/Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8_0-00001-of-00004.gguf --jinja -ngl 99 -fa on -c 131072 - Serve with
vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-Next --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder(vLLM 0.15.0 or later), using the built-in parser rather than the repository's qwen3coder_tool_parser_vllm.py, which fails to import on newer vLLM per discussion 36 - The card's commands use tensor parallel 2 though the text says 4 GPUs, and it suggests cutting the context to 32,768 if the server fails to start
- There's no thinking mode, so don't pass
enable_thinkingor wait for reasoning_content - Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 40
- The GGUF card's llama.cpp example path omits the quant from the file name; the real files are named like Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q4_K_M-00001-of-00004.gguf
- Validate any JSON it returns, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Qwen3-Coder-Next?
Qwen3-Coder-Next scores 57.6 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 1 of 5 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- 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 Qwen3.8-27B
- 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-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-Coder-Next
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- occamy-1.0 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs SmolLM3-3B
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-qwen3-coder-next.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-coder-next.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b qwen3-coder-next(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "qwen3-coder-next"}at/mcp, no key