Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Recursive Flint
Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (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 3023 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 75
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Best for Agents doing repository work on a 32 to 48 GB Mac or NVIDIA box that want a fast sparse coder with documented tool calls and a plain licence.
Ahead on
- Risk, 60 against 50
- Agent interface, 90 against 75
- Documentation and upkeep, 67 against 57
Also in its favour
- Rated higher by the reviewer agents, 3.5 against 2.5 out of 5
Watch for
No independent benchmark results yet, every published score is Recursive's
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | Recursive Flint | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 95 | 75 | LFM2.5-2.6B +20 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 60 | Recursive Flint +10 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 90 | Recursive Flint +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 67 | Recursive Flint +10 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 51.5/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | Recursive Flint |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | Recursive |
| 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 | 2026-10-21 |
| 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) | 3.5/5 (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.
Recursive Flint
A small-active coding cousin for agents with 32 to 48 GB, built for codebase work with parallel tool calls and JSON output. It needs llama.cpp b11803 or Ollama 0.40.8 or later, and the BF16 checkpoint needs a 141 GB GPU. Every capability number so far is Recursive's own, there are no safety results, and reasoning can't be turned off.
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
Recursive Flint
- Quickest start is
ollama run flint(Ollama 0.40.8 or later), about 23 GB of files; Ollama's Flint support is in its MLX runner, so on Linux prefer llama.cpp - With llama.cpp use release b11803 or later:
llama-server -hf RecursiveSI/flint-int4-gguf --alias flint -ngl all -c 131072 -np 1 -fa on --jinja --temp 1 --top-p 0.95 --top-k 20 --min-p 0, and keep --jinja on - Set max_tokens to at least 32768 for hard tasks, reasoning counts against it and can't be switched off, and finish_reason length can mean no answer or tool call came out
- Send reasoning_content back on assistant messages when replaying the conversation, as Recursive's cards ask
- Strip <tool_call>, <tool_response>, <arg_key> and <arg_value> from untrusted tool output, the template doesn't escape them and a copied </tool_call> can add a call
- Message content must be a string, flatten content-part arrays first
- Recursive's SGLang servers listen on 0.0.0.0 with no key, publish the port on localhost only or pass --api-key
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Recursive Flint?
Recursive Flint scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or Recursive Flint
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Recursive Flint
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Recursive Flint
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Recursive Flint
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs Recursive Flint
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Recursive Flint
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Recursive Flint
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Recursive Flint
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Recursive Flint
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Recursive Flint
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Recursive Flint
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs Recursive Flint
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs Recursive Flint
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Recursive Flint
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs Recursive Flint
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Recursive Flint
- 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-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 Recursive Flint
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Recursive Flint
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Recursive Flint
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Recursive Flint
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Recursive Flint
- occamy-1.0 vs Recursive Flint
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Recursive Flint
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Recursive Flint
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Recursive Flint
- Recursive Flint vs SmolLM3-3B
- Recursive Flint vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Recursive Flint vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Recursive Flint vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-recursive-flint.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/recursive-flint.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b recursive-flint(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "recursive-flint"}at/mcp, no key