The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

LFM3-VL-2B vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

LFM3-VL-2B leads the LLM Stats Score 15.5 to 4.7.

Liquid AI · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

LFM3-VL-2B leads the overall LLM Stats Score 15.5 to 4.7, ranking #265 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, LFM3-VL-2B wins 4; 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 LFM3-VL-2B

  • overall performance matters — it scores 15.5 and ranks #265 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 4 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.35/M input and $0.40/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

LFM3-VL-2B
Liquid AI
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
15.5
#265
4.7
#338
Reasoning
16.2
#252
6.1
#325
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
4 of 4
0 of 4
Input price
— / M
$0.35 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.40 / M
Context window
—
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
LFM3-VL-2B
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Math
19.0#187
11.4#259
Vision
11.4#133
2.6#195
Multimodal
12.6#124
5.2#160
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

41 reported for LFM3-VL-2B · 13 for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

4 shared

LFM3-VL-2B outperforms in 4 benchmarks (ChartQA, DocVQA, MMMU-Pro, TextVQA), while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

LFM3-VL-2B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Nov 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

88.1B diff

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct has 88.1B more parameters than LFM3-VL-2B, making it 4587.5% larger.

Liquid AI
LFM3-VL-2B
1.9Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
90.0Bparameters
1.9B
LFM3-VL-2B
90.0B
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Llama 3.2 90B Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Llama 3.2 90B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Liquid AI
LFM3-VL-2B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Mon Nov 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both LFM3-VL-2B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

LFM3-VL-2B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

LFM3-VL-2B is licensed under LFM Open License v1.0, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct uses Llama 3.2.

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

LFM3-VL-2B

LFM Open License v1.0

Open weights

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

LFM3-VL-2B was released on 2026-10-27, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

LFM3-VL-2B is 25 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

LFM3-VL-2B

Oct 27, 2026

5 days ago

2.1yr newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

2.1 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-VL-2B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

LFM3-VL-2B
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about LFM3-VL-2B vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Which is better, LFM3-VL-2B or Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

LFM3-VL-2B leads the LLM Stats Score 15.5 to 4.7. LFM3-VL-2B is made by Liquid AI and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does LFM3-VL-2B compare to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct in benchmarks?

LFM3-VL-2B scores DocVQA: 96.7%, CountBench: 93.0%, ChartQA: 92.7%, RefCOCO-avg: 90.5%, POPE: 88.7%. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.

What are the context window sizes for LFM3-VL-2B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

LFM3-VL-2B supports an unknown number of tokens and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between LFM3-VL-2B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (15.5 vs 4.7), licensing (LFM Open License v1.0 vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes LFM3-VL-2B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

LFM3-VL-2B is developed by Liquid AI and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons