LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3.5 9B
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Wins 4 of 6 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Long documents · Following instructions
Qwen3.5 9B is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 23 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.
- CodingWriting and fixing software03Qwen3.5 9B3 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Qwen3.5 9B2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.5 9B1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.5 9B1 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own00Even0 each · 2 ties
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
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 Qwen3.5 9B pulls ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+64.3points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+24.8points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+24.7points ahead
Where LFM2.5-2.6B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+67.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 23 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.5 9B
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Qwen3.5 9B by 24.74.529.2+24.7
- SciCodeQwen3.5 9B by 15.114.429.5+15.1
- LiveCodeBench v6Qwen3.5 9B by 6.259.465.6+6.2
ReasoningQwen3.5 9B
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.5 9B by 24.855.880.6+24.8
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.5 9B by 8.76.214.9+8.7
- CritPttie00.3tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLFM2.5-2.6B by 67.68416.4+67.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3.5 9B by 124.316.4+12
Following instructionsQwen3.5 9B
- IFBenchQwen3.5 9B by 7.559.266.7+7.5
Other results11 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.
- AA-OmniscienceLFM2.5-2.6B by 42.6-10.9-53.5+42.6
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3.5 9B by 217.728.7+21
- LiveCodeBenchV6 no toolsQwen3.5 9B by 10.559.469.9+10.5
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.5 9B by 4.62.47+4.6
- AIME25 no toolsQwen3.5 9B by 4.251.956.1+4.2
- Claw-Eval AvgQwen3.5 9B by 3.662.966.5+3.6
- PinchBenchQwen3.5 9B by 3.368.271.5+3.3
- BFCLv4Qwen3.5 9B by 3.256.960.1+3.2
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.5 9B by 2.88.411.2+2.8
- τ³-Bench Bankingtie5.75.2tie
- BrowseComp+ (OpenClaw)tie26.927.2tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, LFM2.5-2.6B or Qwen3.5 9B?
Qwen3.5 9B wins four of the six areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, long documents and following instructions. LFM2.5-2.6B wins none. They are level on agents and facts.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.5 9B. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; LFM2.5-2.6B wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 23 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 12 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 11 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.