LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, LFM2.5-VL-1.6B remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

LFM2.5-VL-1.6B

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 1
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: —

Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.000
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 46.397tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `LFM2.5-VL-1.6B` vs `Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct debate, LFM2.5-VL-1.6B scores 60 against Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct's 60. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

LFM2.5-VL-1.6B300ms

Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct300ms

Tokens per Second

LFM2.5-VL-1.6B46

Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct46.397

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct

Power is only one part of the equation. This LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, LFM2.5-VL-1.6B would cost $0.018, whereas Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct would cost $0.000. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Battle for You?

Choose LFM2.5-VL-1.6B if...

Cost is a secondary concern to power in your LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct decision.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct if...

You need a highly responsive model for user-facing applications.

Your budget is a primary consideration in the LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct choice.

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the LFM2.5-VL-1.6B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/