LFM2-1.2B vs Qwen3 235B A22B
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Following instructions
Qwen3 235B A22B is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 19 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six 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 thinking02Qwen3 235B A22B2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software02Qwen3 235B A22B2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up02Qwen3 235B A22B2 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own01Qwen3 235B A22B1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3 235B A22B1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
Agents, long documents 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 Qwen3 235B A22B pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+47.2points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+37.4points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+16.7points ahead
Where LFM2-1.2B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 19 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3 235B A22B
- SciCodeQwen3 235B A22B by 37.42.539.9+37.4
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3 235B A22B by 6.106.1+6.1
ReasoningQwen3 235B A22B
- GPQA DiamondQwen3 235B A22B by 47.222.870+47.2
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3 235B A22B by 5.45.611+5.4
- CritPttie00tie
FactsQwen3 235B A22B
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3 235B A22B by 13.64.918.5+13.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3 235B A22B by 3.818.622.4+3.8
Following instructionsQwen3 235B A22B
- IFBenchQwen3 235B A22B by 16.72238.7+16.7
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.
- MMMLUQwen3 235B A22B by 4046.786.7+40
- GSM8KQwen3 235B A22B by 36.158.394.4+36.1
- MMLUQwen3 235B A22B by 31.855.287+31.8
- MGSMQwen3 235B A22B by 28.55583.5+28.5
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3 235B A22B by 27.7-72.4-44.7+27.7
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3 235B A22B by 14.24.218.4+14.2
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3 235B A22B by 11.412.624+11.4
- IFEvalQwen3 235B A22B by 8.374.983.2+8.3
- AA IntelligenceQwen3 235B A22B by 4.74.89.5+4.7
Questions people ask
Which is better, LFM2-1.2B or Qwen3 235B A22B?
Qwen3 235B A22B wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts and following instructions. LFM2-1.2B wins none. They are level on long documents.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3 235B A22B. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; LFM2-1.2B wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 19 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 10 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.