Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

LFM2.5-8B-A1B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

41.42/100
Margin
25.8pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: LFM2.5-8B-A1B #166 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. LFM2.5-8B-A1B and Qwen3.7 Plus share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to LFM2.5-8B-A1B; 55 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
14
LFM2.5-8B-A1B only
3
Qwen3.7 Plus only
55
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LFM2.5-8B-A1B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 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

Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 41.42. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 92.9 against 50. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFBench, 56.5% to 79.1%.

Qwen3.7 Plus 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 scores and score margins for LFM2.5-8B-A1B and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryLFM2.5-8B-A1BΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathLFM2.5-8B-A1B50.0Margin→ 42.9Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
Inst. FollowingLFM2.5-8B-A1B68.8Margin→ 15.7Qwen3.7 Plus84.5
AgenticLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
KnowledgeLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus60.1
MultilingualLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · LFM2.5-8B-A1BB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. IFBench

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 56.5%B 79.1%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 22.6
    IFBench: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 56.5%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79.1%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. IFEval

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 91.8%B 94.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 2.8
    IFEval: LFM2.5-8B-A1B scored 91.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 94.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensLFM2.5-8B-A1B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenLFM2.5-8B-A1BNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensLFM2.5-8B-A1B128KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen3.7 PlusResult
BFCL v4Source 49.7%72.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 16.1%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-SciCodeSource 7.8%45.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.7%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —57.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 0.0%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 0.0%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 51.3%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 6.9%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -33.3%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 9.4%22.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 47.0%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 8.3%39.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen3.7 PlusResult
MATH-500Source 88.8%—Not comparable
AIME 2025Source 42.5%—Not comparable
AIME26Source 50.0%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. FollowingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkLFM2.5-8B-A1BQwen3.7 PlusResult
IFEvalSource 91.8%94.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFBenchSource 56.5%79.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-IFBenchSource 55.6%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 41.42. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFBench, where the scores are 56.5% and 79.1%.

Which is better for math, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 50. LFM2.5-8B-A1B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for instruction following, LFM2.5-8B-A1B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 84.5 versus 68.8. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

LiquidAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.