LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Qwen3.5 4B
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Qwen3.5 4B is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 25 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.
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video04Qwen3.5 4B4 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Qwen3.5 4B2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software02Qwen3.5 4B2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up02Qwen3.5 4B2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.5 4B1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.5 4B1 of 1 test
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 4B pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+48.2points ahead
- Harder college exam questions with imagesMMMU-Pro+38.9points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+18.9points ahead
Where LFM2.5-VL-1.6B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 25 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.5 4B
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3.5 4B by 18.2018.2+18.2
- SciCodeQwen3.5 4B by 13.1316.1+13.1
ReasoningQwen3.5 4B
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.5 4B by 48.228.977.1+48.2
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.5 4B by 4.85.19.9+4.8
- CritPttie00tie
FactsQwen3.5 4B
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3.5 4B by 9.35.815.1+9.3
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.5 4B by 9.14.313.4+9.1
Images and chartsQwen3.5 4B
Following instructionsQwen3.5 4B
- IFBenchQwen3.5 4B by 18.933.152+18.9
Other results12 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.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.5 4B by 83.68.592.1+83.6
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.5 4B by 29.72.832.5+29.7
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3.5 4B by 26.1-84.4-58.4+26.1
- OCRBench v2_enQwen3.5 4B by 17.241.558.7+17.2
- MM-IFEvalQwen3.5 4B by 10.852.363.1+10.8
- ChartQA TestQwen3.5 4B by 10.373.984.2+10.3
- MMMBQwen3.5 4B by 10.371.782+10.3
- MMMU (val) (Pass@1)Qwen3.5 4B by 9.740.650.3+9.7
- HallusionBenchLFM2.5-VL-1.6B by 8.460.151.7+8.4
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.5 4B by 8.34.813.1+8.3
- DocVQA-valQwen3.5 4B by 7.187.794.8+7.1
- RealWorldQAQwen3.5 4B by 2.364.867.1+2.3
Questions people ask
Which is better, LFM2.5-VL-1.6B or Qwen3.5 4B?
Qwen3.5 4B wins all six areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. LFM2.5-VL-1.6B wins none.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.5 4B. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; LFM2.5-VL-1.6B wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 25 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 13 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 12 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.