LFM2-VL-1.6B is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 9 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the one area 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.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where LFM2-VL-1.6B pulls ahead
- Reads text in imagesOCRBench+1.6points ahead
Where InternVL3.5-1B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 9 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
Images and chartsLFM2-VL-1.6B
Other results6 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.
- MM-IFEvalLFM2-VL-1.6B by 10.236.246.4+10.2
- RealWorldQALFM2-VL-1.6B by 8.757.165.8+8.7
- MMMB (avg)LFM2-VL-1.6B by 3.268.972.1+3.2
- InfoVQA (val)InternVL3.5-1B by 2.66158.4+2.6
- Multilingual MMBench (avg)LFM2-VL-1.6B by 2.358.360.6+2.3
- MMMU (val) (Pass@1)InternVL3.5-1B by 2.241.939.7+2.2
Questions people ask
Which is better, InternVL3.5-1B or LFM2-VL-1.6B?
LFM2-VL-1.6B wins the one area where both have results: images and charts. InternVL3.5-1B wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 9 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 3 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 6 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.