LFM2.5-230M vs Qwen3.5 0.8B (Instruct)
Wins 1 of 2 areas
Following instructions
Wins 1 of 2 areas
Reasoning
The two are evenly matched.LFM2.5-230M is better at following instructions; Qwen3.5 0.8B (Instruct) at reasoning.
Scores updated · 8 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the two 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.
Reasoning 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 LFM2.5-230M pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+15.5points ahead
Where Qwen3.5 0.8B (Instruct) pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+2points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 8 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
ReasoningQwen3.5 0.8B (Instruct)
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.5 0.8B (Instruct) by 225.427.4+2
Following instructionsLFM2.5-230M
- IFBenchLFM2.5-230M by 15.538.422.9+15.5
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.
Questions people ask
Which is better, LFM2.5-230M or Qwen3.5 0.8B (Instruct)?
LFM2.5-230M and Qwen3.5 0.8B (Instruct) each win one of the two areas where both have results. LFM2.5-230M wins following instructions; Qwen3.5 0.8B (Instruct) wins reasoning.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 8 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 2 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.