The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

LFM3-1.7B vs Phi-3.5-vision-instruct

LFM3-1.7B leads the LLM Stats Score 25.0 to -3.7.

Liquid AI · Microsoft · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

LFM3-1.7B leads the overall LLM Stats Score 25.0 to -3.7, ranking #192 overall.

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

Choose LFM3-1.7B

  • overall performance matters — it scores 25.0 and ranks #192 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose Phi-3.5-vision-instruct

  • you are already invested in the Microsoft ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

LFM3-1.7B
Liquid AI
Phi-3.5-vision-instruct
Microsoft
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
25.0
#192
-3.7
#385
Reasoning
20.8
#216
-5.3
#385
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

20 reported for LFM3-1.7B · 9 for Phi-3.5-vision-instruct

No common benchmarks found

LFM3-1.7B and Phi-3.5-vision-instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

2.5B diff

Phi-3.5-vision-instruct has 2.5B more parameters than LFM3-1.7B, making it 142.8% larger.

Liquid AI
LFM3-1.7B
1.7Bparameters
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-vision-instruct
4.2Bparameters
1.7B
LFM3-1.7B
4.2B
Phi-3.5-vision-instruct

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Phi-3.5-vision-instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas LFM3-1.7B does not.

Phi-3.5-vision-instruct can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

LFM3-1.7B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Phi-3.5-vision-instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

LFM3-1.7B is licensed under LFM Open License v1.0, while Phi-3.5-vision-instruct uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

LFM3-1.7B

LFM Open License v1.0

Open weights

Phi-3.5-vision-instruct

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

LFM3-1.7B was released on 2026-10-27, while Phi-3.5-vision-instruct was released on 2024-08-23.

LFM3-1.7B is 27 months newer than Phi-3.5-vision-instruct.

LFM3-1.7B

Oct 27, 2026

5 days ago

2.2yr newer
Phi-3.5-vision-instruct

Aug 23, 2024

2.2 years ago

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?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against LFM3-1.7B and Phi-3.5-vision-instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

LFM3-1.7B
✓ Preferred
Phi-3.5-vision-instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about LFM3-1.7B vs Phi-3.5-vision-instruct.

Which is better, LFM3-1.7B or Phi-3.5-vision-instruct?

LFM3-1.7B leads the LLM Stats Score 25.0 to -3.7. LFM3-1.7B is made by Liquid AI and Phi-3.5-vision-instruct is made by Microsoft. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does LFM3-1.7B compare to Phi-3.5-vision-instruct in benchmarks?

LFM3-1.7B scores IFEval: 96.7%, Multi-IF: 89.1%, LiveCodeBench v6: 73.5%, IFBench: 73.0%, BFCL-V4: 71.4%. Phi-3.5-vision-instruct scores ScienceQA: 91.3%, POPE: 86.1%, MMBench: 81.9%, ChartQA: 81.8%, AI2D: 78.1%.

What are the main differences between LFM3-1.7B and Phi-3.5-vision-instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (25.0 vs -3.7), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (LFM Open License v1.0 vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes LFM3-1.7B and Phi-3.5-vision-instruct?

LFM3-1.7B is developed by Liquid AI and Phi-3.5-vision-instruct is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons