LFM3-VL-2B is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 12 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.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where LFM3-VL-2B pulls ahead
Where LFM3-Omni-2B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 12 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
Images and chartsLFM3-VL-2B
Other results9 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.
- InfoVQALFM3-VL-2B by 22.164.186.2+22.1
- MMMU (val) (Pass@1)LFM3-VL-2B by 13.342.455.7+13.3
- RealWorldQALFM3-VL-2B by 12.866.579.3+12.8
- MV-BenchLFM3-VL-2B by 11.45869.4+11.4
- ERQALFM3-VL-2B by 9.738.548.2+9.7
- DocVQALFM3-VL-2B by 4.292.596.7+4.2
- MMBenchLFM3-VL-2B by 2.873.776.5+2.8
- SEED-Bench (image)LFM3-VL-2B by 1.775.176.8+1.7
- POPEtie89.388.7tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, LFM3-Omni-2B or LFM3-VL-2B?
LFM3-VL-2B wins the one area where both have results: images and charts. LFM3-Omni-2B wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 12 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 3 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 9 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.