# llama.cpp vs LM Studio (slim)

> llama.cpp has a score of 60.2 (C) against LM Studio's 57.9 (C). Both do local inference. The largest gap is reliability, 30 points. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/llama-cpp-vs-lm-studio.md (~1,600 tokens) · this version ~330 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/llama-cpp-vs-lm-studio.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/llama-cpp-vs-lm-studio
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · Updated: 2026-10-05

llama.cpp has a score of 60.2 (C) against LM Studio's 57.9 (C). Both do local inference. The largest gap is reliability, 30 points.

- llama.cpp: C 60.2, rank #253 of 452 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/llama-cpp.min.md
- LM Studio: C 57.9, rank #287 of 452 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/lm-studio.min.md
- Pick llama.cpp for reliability (+30), maintenance & community (+9). Pick LM Studio for schema & documentation (+17), security & auth (+7).

| Category | llama.cpp | LM Studio |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 64 | 34 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 47 | 64 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 73 | 69 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 52 | 59 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 60 | 60 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 81 | 72 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 60 | 61 |