Model comparison
Inkling vs LFM2.5-8B-A1B
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Inkling #20 (Supported); LFM2.5-8B-A1B #166 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Inkling and LFM2.5-8B-A1B share 11 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to Inkling; 6 to LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Inkling only
- 21
- LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Inkling is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.54 to 41.42. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Inkling's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 50. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME26, 97.1% to 50.0%.
Inkling is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for LFM2.5-8B-A1B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. LFM2.5-8B-A1B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Inkling gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for LFM2.5-8B-A1B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Inkling | Δ | LFM2.5-8B-A1B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Inkling97.1 | Margin← 47.1 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0 |
| Inst. Following | Inkling79.8 | Margin← 11.0 | LFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8 |
| Agentic | Inkling69.4 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Coding | Inkling68.6 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Knowledge | Inkling51.6 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Inkling76.5 | MarginNo overlap | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Inkling | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Inkling$1.87 input / $4.68 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 output | LFM2.5-8B-A1B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | InklingNot available | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | InklingNot available | LFM2.5-8B-A1BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Inkling1M | LFM2.5-8B-A1B128K | Inkling lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.8% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 77.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource | 1257 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 36.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1239 | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 836 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 23.7% | — | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 16.1% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Inkling | LFM2.5-8B-A1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 46% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 30% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.7% | 8.3% | Inkling leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 87.2% | 51.3% | Inkling leads |
| AA-HLESource | 29.7% | 6.9% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 2.1% | -33.3% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.0% | 9.4% | Inkling leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 63.1% | 47.0% | LFM2.5-8B-A1B leads |
MathInkling wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Inkling or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.54 to 41.42. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME26, where the scores are 97.1% and 50.0%.
Which is better for math, Inkling or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 50. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Inkling or LFM2.5-8B-A1B?
Inkling has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 68.8. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.