LFM2-VL-3B is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 6 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the one area 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 charts rests on a single test.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where LFM2-VL-3B pulls ahead
- Reads text in imagesOCRBench+7.1points ahead
Where Qwen3 VL 2B Instruct pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 6 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
Other results5 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.
- HallusionBenchQwen3 VL 2B Instruct by 20.946.467.3+20.9
- ChartQA TestLFM2-VL-3B by 11.180.469.3+11.1
- MMMBLFM2-VL-3B by 9.681.972.3+9.6
- DocVQA-valLFM2-VL-3B by 7.389.882.5+7.3
- OCRBench v2_enLFM2-VL-3B by 2.243.941.7+2.2
Questions people ask
Which is better, LFM2-VL-3B or Qwen3 VL 2B Instruct?
LFM2-VL-3B wins the one area where both have results: images and charts. Qwen3 VL 2B Instruct wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 6 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 1 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 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.