Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
LFM2.5-2.6B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B) scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 0 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach, risk and agent interface. 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 75
- Risk, 50 against 45
- Agent interface, 75 against 70
Watch for
Commercial use isn't licensed for organisations with $10M or more of annual revenue
Best for Small teams and individuals running Qwen3.8-27B for agent or reasoning work who want shorter thinking traces on one 24 GB GPU or Mac.
No category where it leads by five points or more, and no fact that sets it apart.
Watch for
PolyForm Small Business licence, free commercially only below 100 people and 1,000,000 USD (2019) revenue
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | LFM2.5-2.6B | ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B) | 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 | 45 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 75 | 70 | LFM2.5-2.6B +5 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 57 | 53 | LFM2.5-2.6B +4 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | D 51.5/100 | C 61/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | LFM2.5-2.6B | ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B) |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Liquid AI | BottleCap AI |
| 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) | PolyForm-Small-Business-1.0.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | yes | no |
| Last release | 2026-09-22 | 2026-10-06 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | 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.
ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
A Qwen3.8-27B with shorter reasoning, for agent work where thinking tokens cost time, and BottleCap's 4-bit GGUF runs in about 19 GB. The main limits are the licence, which needs a paid licence above 100 people or 1,000,000 USD revenue, a gated main repository, and no safety results or training-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
ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Check the licence first, an organisation with 100 or more people or 1,000,000 USD (2019) revenue needs a commercial licence from BottleCap
- For files without the gate use
llama-server -hf bottlecapai/ThinkingCap-Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, about 17.4 GB - On vLLM use
--reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_xml, and on SGLang--tool-call-parser qwen3_coder - Set
reasoning_effort(xhigh, medium or low) in chat_template_kwargs, any other value makes the template raise an error - Keep the base's sampling (temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95, top_k 20), the GGUF card says greedy decoding can loop
- The GGUFs carry an MTP head, and llama.cpp builds without MTP support for this architecture may refuse to load them with a missing blk.64 tensor
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, LFM2.5-2.6B or ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)?
ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B) scores 61 (C) on agent readiness against LFM2.5-2.6B's 51.5 (D), and leads in 0 of 4 scored categories. LFM2.5-2.6B leads on reach, risk and agent interface.
Other comparisons with LFM2.5-2.6B or ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Agents-A1-4B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Agents-A1-4B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- BigBang-v1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- BigBang-v1 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-5.3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-5.3 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- gpt-oss-120b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-120b vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- gpt-oss-20b vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- gpt-oss-20b vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Granite 4.2 3B vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Granite 4.2 3B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Hy3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Hy3 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Inkling-Small vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling-Small vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Inkling vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Inkling vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Kimi K3 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kimi K3 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Kolibri-1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Kolibri-1 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Laguna M.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna M.1 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Laguna S 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna S 2.1 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs ThinkingCap (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 Qwen3.8-27B
- 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
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- MiniCPM5-2B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- occamy-1.0 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.5-2B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.5-4B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.5-9B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.6-27B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.8-27B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- SmolLM3-3B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Spark-X2.6-4B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/lfm2-5-2-6b-vs-thinkingcap-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/thinkingcap-qwen3-8-27b.json - From a terminal
anchor compare lfm2-5-2-6b thinkingcap-qwen3-8-27b(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "lfm2-5-2-6b", "b": "thinkingcap-qwen3-8-27b"}at/mcp, no key