Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs Step 3.7 Flash
Step 3.7 Flash scores 59.8 (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, risk 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 6359 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 70
- Risk, 50 against 45
- Documentation and upkeep, 57 against 39
Watch for
Liquid lists it as deprecated, replaced by LFM3-1.7B; deprecated models stay downloadable but get no further updates
Best for Teams with a GPU server or a provider account that want an open, long-context agent model with vision
Ahead on
- Agent interface, 85 against 75
Watch for
About 131 GB to run at 4 bits with images, over a 128 GB machine's share
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.
Reach LFM2.5-2.6B +20
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.
Step 3.7 Flash 70
Memory 5, the smallest build at 4 bits is StepFun's IQ4_XS GGUF, 104.99 GB with the 3.97 GB projector, and 108.96 GB × 1.2 = 130.8 GB, over what the reference machine can give a model and within 256 GB. The IQ3 and Q3 builds are below 4 bits and aren't read. Runtimes 20, Released vLLM 0.33.0, SGLang 0.5.23 and Transformers 5.22.2 have the step3p7 model, and llama.cpp b12242 has the architecture, with StepFun's own GGUF. Four at 5 each, and the card documents all four. Builds 15, StepFun publishes GGUF at five quantised precisions, an FP8 build and an NVFP4 build. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 in the card's metadata and its licence section, an OSI licence with nothing added. Download 10, the Hub API reports gated false for all four repositories on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and nothing to accept. Hosted 5, StepFun's own API serves it, per the card and our StepFun API listing, and Featherless and DeepInfra are live for it on Hugging Face. 5 + 20 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 5 = 70.
Documentation and upkeep LFM2.5-2.6B +18
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.
Step 3.7 Flash 39
Model card 14, Intended use, the architecture, the parameters, the context and the language (in the metadata) are on the card. Training data 0, Nothing on the card about the training data. Last change 10, the last commit, on 3 June 2026, fixed the modelling code, 160 days before this check and within 180. Responsiveness 0, none of the 11 most recent discussions that aren't pull requests (29 May to 24 June 2026) has a reply from a stepfun-ai member, counted on 10 November by author flags and dates with a script, text not read. Version policy 5, Step-3.5-Flash stays in its own repositories and 3.7 came out in new ones, with no dated note on the older cards that we read. File health 10, Config, template and card agree on the architecture and the context, and June commits fixed the modelling code. 14 + 0 + 10 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 39.
Agent interface Step 3.7 Flash +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.
Step 3.7 Flash 85
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (5,723 characters). Tool-calling format 25, the card names the parser to use in two runtimes, step3p5 in vLLM (with auto tool choice) and in SGLang, and both ship Step parsers in a release. Trained tool calling 20, the card presents tool orchestration as a main use, with multi-turn results, and the template renders every call in a turn. Structured output 0, Nothing on the card about JSON or schema-constrained output for the weights. Reasoning control 10, the template has a reasoning_effort setting and keeps reasoning_content, and the card names the step3p5 reasoning parser for vLLM and SGLang, which returns the reasoning apart from the answer. Context 10, 256K tokens per the card, and 262,144 positions in config.json. 20 + 25 + 20 + 0 + 10 + 10 = 85.
Risk LFM2.5-2.6B +5
LFM2.5-2.6B 50
File safety earns 25, safetensors and GGUF only, and nothing from the repository runs to load it or build prompts. Provenance earns 15, files in the LiquidAI organisation Liquid links to, with a checksum for every file. Safety evaluation and agent guidance earn nothing, since Liquid publishes neither. Licence risk earns 10, losing 5 for the revenue threshold, with no use policy and no change since release. The security programme earns nothing, since no security.txt, disclosure policy or security contact was found.
Step 3.7 Flash 45
File safety 15, safetensors and GGUF only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25). Provenance 15, the files sit in the stepfun-ai organisation, which the card's StepFun platform and model page belong to (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results on the card. Agent guidance 0, the card has no limitations section and gives no guidance on prompt injection, instruction priority, refusals or safeguards. Licence risk 15, Apache 2.0 has no use policy, threshold or change clause. Security programme 0, no way to report a flaw on the card, and our StepFun API listing found no security.txt, bug bounty or disclosure policy. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | Step 3.7 Flash | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 90 | 70 | LFM2.5-2.6B +20 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 50 | 45 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 85 | Step 3.7 Flash +10 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 39 | LFM2.5-2.6B +18 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 50.3/100 | C 59.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | StepFun |
| 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 (metadata and card; no LICENSE file) |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-11-03 | 2026-06-03 |
| 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
Step 3.7 Flash
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.
Step 3.7 Flash
A capable open agent model with a clean licence, every kind of build and four released runtimes. Two things hold it back: it's a little too big for a 128 GB machine at 4 bits, whatever the card says, and StepFun has gone quiet on the repository since June. No safety results, limitations or data description.
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
Step 3.7 Flash
- On a 128 GB machine the 4-bit GGUF won't fit with a working context. Use StepFun's API or a provider, or a server
- On vLLM or SGLang pass
--tool-call-parser step3p5 --reasoning-parser step3p5 - The card's commands pass trust-remote-code. Released Transformers 5.22.2 has the model built in if you'd rather not run the repository's code
- For llama.cpp load the mmproj file from StepFun's GGUF repository for image input
- StepFun's API has two hosts. Use the one where your key was issued,
api.stepfun.aiorapi.stepfun.com - The same model is on our StepFun API listing, with prices and terms
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Step 3.7 Flash scores 59.8 (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, risk and documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or Step 3.7 Flash
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Arete-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Arete-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Carbon-X vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Carbon-X vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cola2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cola2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Devstral Small 2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Devstral Small 2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- EXAONE 4.5 33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 30B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Granite 4.2 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs Step 3.7 Flash
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Kronos vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kronos vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LBS-27B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- LBS-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- 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 LongCat-2.5
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL
- 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 Nanbeige4.2-3B
- 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 North Mini Code 1.0
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs occamy-1.0
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- 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 OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT
- 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 SenseNova-Loop-9B-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
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs ZAYA1-8B
- LFM3-1.7B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- LongCat-2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash-RL vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Mistral Large 4 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.2-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- North Mini Code 1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- occamy-1.0 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- OTel-2.0-LLM-31B-IT vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Recursive Flint vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Ripple-65B Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SenseNova-Loop-9B-Preview vs Step 3.7 Flash
- SmolLM3-3B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Step 3.7 Flash vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-2B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs WeVisOne-VL-4B
- Step 3.7 Flash vs ZAYA1-8B
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-step-3-7-flash.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/step-3-7-flash.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b step-3-7-flash(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "step-3-7-flash"}at/mcp, no key