Gemma 3 1B Instruct vs LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Wins 2 of 5 areas
Reasoning · Following instructions
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking wins more areas, narrowly.
Scores updated · 17 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking01LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking1 of 3 tests · 2 ties
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking1 of 1 test
- CodingWriting and fixing software00Even0 each · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
Coding, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+21.9points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+10.2points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+3.6points ahead
Where Gemma 3 1B Instruct pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+12.1points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 17 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
ReasoningLFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking
- GPQA DiamondLFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 10.223.733.9+10.2
- Humanity's Last Examtie5.36.2tie
- CritPttie00tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGemma 3 1B Instruct by 12.117.75.6+12.1
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyLFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 3.63.87.4+3.6
Following instructionsLFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking
- IFBenchLFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 21.919.941.8+21.9
Other results9 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- MATH-500 (EM)LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 42.845.288+42.8
- BFCL v3LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 40.416.657+40.4
- MMLU-ProLFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 3514.749.6+35
- GSM8KLFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 22.862.885.6+22.8
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 9.110.519.6+9.1
- IFEvalLFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 8.280.288.4+8.2
- AA-OmniscienceGemma 3 1B Instruct by 4.5-75.5-80+4.5
- AA Agentic IndexLFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking by 33.56.5+3
- AA Intelligencetie4.85.2tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemma 3 1B Instruct or LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking?
LFM2.5-1.2B-Thinking wins two of the five areas where both have results: reasoning and following instructions. Gemma 3 1B Instruct wins none. They are level on coding, facts and long documents.
Which is better for coding?
Neither. All 1 coding tests both models report are ties.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 17 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 8 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 9 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.