The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.0 to 19.0.

Liquid AI · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.0 to 19.0, ranking #44 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose LFM2.5-2.6B

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

  • overall performance matters — it scores 43.0 and ranks #44 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

LFM2.5-2.6B
Liquid AI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
19.0
#208
43.0
#44
Reasoning
14.7
#228
44.2
#35
Agents
7.9
#135
29.2
#37
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
— / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
—
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
LFM2.5-2.6B
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Tool use
2.0#170
20.4#58
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

9 reported for LFM2.5-2.6B · 6 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

1 shared

LFM2.5-2.6B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is better at 1 benchmark (Tau3 Banking).

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sun Sep 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

121.3B diff

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has 121.3B more parameters than LFM2.5-2.6B, making it 4509.7% larger.

Liquid AI
LFM2.5-2.6B
2.7Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
124.0Bparameters
2.7B
LFM2.5-2.6B
124.0B
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Ling 3.0 Flash Fin specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Ling 3.0 Flash Fin specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

Liquid AI
LFM2.5-2.6B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Sun Sep 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

LFM2.5-2.6B was released on 2026-08-04, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 1 month newer than LFM2.5-2.6B.

LFM2.5-2.6B

Aug 4, 2026

1 months ago

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

2 weeks ago

1mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against LFM2.5-2.6B and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

LFM2.5-2.6B
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.

Which is better, LFM2.5-2.6B or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.0 to 19.0. LFM2.5-2.6B is made by Liquid AI and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is made by InclusionAI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does LFM2.5-2.6B compare to Ling 3.0 Flash Fin in benchmarks?

LFM2.5-2.6B scores Multi-IF: 80.1%, PinchBench: 68.2%, Claw-Eval: 62.8%, LiveCodeBench v6: 59.4%, IFBench: 59.2%. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin scores SpreadSheetBench-v1: 86.5%, Finance Agent v1.1: 69.2%, Finance Agent v2: 59.8%, Tau3 Banking: 41.0%, APEX-Agents: 29.2%.

What are the context window sizes for LFM2.5-2.6B and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

LFM2.5-2.6B supports an unknown number of tokens and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between LFM2.5-2.6B and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (19.0 vs 43.0), licensing (LFM Open License v1.0 vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes LFM2.5-2.6B and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

LFM2.5-2.6B is developed by Liquid AI and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons