LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 1B
Wins 3 of 4 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 4 areas
—
LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 21 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the four 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 software20LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning)2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking10LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning)1 of 3 tests · 2 ties
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning)1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Following instructions rests on a single test.
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 LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) pulls ahead
- Recent programming contest problemsLiveCodeBench v6+16.9points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+14.8points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+5.1points ahead
Where Llama 3.2 Instruct 1B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+26points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 21 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning)
- LiveCodeBench v6LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 16.9214.1+16.9
- SciCodeLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 5.16.81.7+5.1
- Terminal-Bench Hardtie00tie
ReasoningLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning)
- GPQA DiamondLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 14.834.419.6+14.8
- Humanity's Last Examtie4.95.5tie
- CritPttie00tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLlama 3.2 Instruct 1B by 267.733.7+26
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 1.28.27+1.2
Following instructionsLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning)
- IFBenchLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 3.526.322.8+3.5
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.
- MATH-500 (EM)LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 50.874.223.4+50.8
- HumanEval+LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 46.369.523.2+46.3
- MGSMLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 43.372.429.1+43.3
- IFEvalLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 25.277.652.4+25.2
- BFCL v3LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 23.745.121.4+23.7
- AA-OmniscienceLlama 3.2 Instruct 1B by 21.8-76.5-54.7+21.8
- MMLULFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 18.264.846.6+18.2
- LCB v5LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 17.821.43.6+17.8
- MMMLULFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 17.155.338.1+17.1
- MMLU-ProLFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 16.637.420.8+16.6
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) by 10.510.50+10.5
- AA Intelligencetie4.94.8tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) or Llama 3.2 Instruct 1B?
LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning) wins three of the four areas where both have results: coding, reasoning and following instructions. Llama 3.2 Instruct 1B wins none. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
LFM2-8B-A1B (Non-Reasoning). It wins 2 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Llama 3.2 Instruct 1B wins none, and 1 is a tie.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 21 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 9 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.