Gemma 4 E4B vs LFM3-1.7B
Wins 0 of 4 areas
—
Wins 4 of 4 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Following instructions
LFM3-1.7B is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 20 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the four 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.
Agents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where LFM3-1.7B pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+28.8points ahead
- Multi-step tasks using many real software toolsMCP Atlas+26.4points ahead
- Recent programming contest problemsLiveCodeBench v6+21.5points ahead
Where Gemma 4 E4B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 20 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingLFM3-1.7B
- LiveCodeBench v6LFM3-1.7B by 21.55273.5+21.5
- SciCodeLFM3-1.7B by 4.124.428.5+4.1
ReasoningLFM3-1.7B
- GPQA DiamondLFM3-1.7B by 5.857.663.4+5.8
- Humanity's Last ExamLFM3-1.7B by 3.43.87.2+3.4
Following instructionsLFM3-1.7B
- IFBenchLFM3-1.7B by 28.844.273+28.8
Other results14 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.
- RULER 128KLFM3-1.7B by 46.818.865.6+46.8
- AutomationBench PublicLFM3-1.7B by 39.41.941.3+39.4
- τ³-bench (4 domains), averageLFM3-1.7B by 34.533.568+34.5
- Claw-Eval General (EN), pass^3LFM3-1.7B by 2922.451.4+29
- BFCLv4LFM3-1.7B by 2546.471.4+25
- SWE-bench Multilingual (OpenCode)LFM3-1.7B by 22.30.723+22.3
- WebArena-VerifiedLFM3-1.7B by 21.317.138.4+21.3
- EnterpriseOps-GymLFM3-1.7B by 18.39.928.2+18.3
- BrowseComp-Plus (OpenClaw subset)LFM3-1.7B by 162137+16
- Terminal-Bench 2.1 (OpenCode)LFM3-1.7B by 12.9012.9+12.9
- Claw-Eval General (EN), averageLFM3-1.7B by 12.556.168.6+12.5
- IFEvalLFM3-1.7B by 8.887.996.7+8.8
- HLE (with tools)LFM3-1.7B by 7.9613.9+7.9
- LiveCodeBench Pro 25Q2LFM3-1.7B by 1.829.931.7+1.8
Questions people ask
Which is better, Gemma 4 E4B or LFM3-1.7B?
LFM3-1.7B wins all four areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and following instructions. Gemma 4 E4B wins none.
Which is better for coding?
LFM3-1.7B. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Gemma 4 E4B wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 20 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 6 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 14 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.