LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Wins 5 of 7 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Long documents
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 22 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven 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 VL 30B A3B Instruct4 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software02Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up02Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct1 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own00Even0 each · 1 tie
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked00Even0 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 VL 30B A3B Instruct pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+40.6points ahead
- Harder college exam questions with imagesMMMU-Pro+35.6points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+27.8points 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 22 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct
- SciCodeQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 27.8330.8+27.8
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 6.106.1+6.1
ReasoningQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct
- GPQA DiamondQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 40.628.969.5+40.6
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 1.25.16.3+1.2
- CritPttie00tie
FactsQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 9.85.815.6+9.8
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 24.36.3+2
Images and chartsQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct
Long documentsQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct
- AA-LCRQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 27.3027.3+27.3
Other results8 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.
- MMMU (val) (Pass@1)Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 33.640.674.2+33.6
- OCRBench v2_enQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 21.741.563.2+21.7
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 21-84.4-63.4+21
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 10.58.519+10.5
- RealWorldQAQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 8.964.873.7+8.9
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 6.72.89.5+6.7
- AA IntelligenceQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 3.14.87.9+3.1
- HallusionBenchQwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct by 1.460.161.5+1.4
Questions people ask
Which is better, LFM2.5-VL-1.6B or Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct?
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct wins five of the seven areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, images and charts and long documents. LFM2.5-VL-1.6B wins none. They are level on agents and following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Instruct. 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 22 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 14 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 8 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.