LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning): A Comparação Definitiva de Desempenho e Preço

Mergulhe profundamente em raciocínio, benchmarks e insights de latência.

O Veredicto Final no Confronto LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)

Após uma análise abrangente, Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) surge como a escolha superior para usuários que priorizam inteligência e raciocínio brutos. No entanto, LFM2 2.6B continua a ser uma opção altamente competitiva, especialmente para cenários que exigem tempos de resposta mais rápidos e eficiência de custos. Esta detalhada comparação de LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) irá analisar cada métrica crítica para ajudá-lo a tomar a melhor decisão.

Explore os melhores cenários•Deixe o AI Selector recomendar os próximos passos

Instantâneo do Modelo

Principais métricas de decisão em um relance.

LFM2 2.6B

Other

Raciocínio: 1
Codificação: 1
Multimodal: 1
Contexto Longo: 1
Preço Combinado / 1M tokens: $0.015
Latência P95: 1000ms
Tokens por segundo: —

Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)

Other

Raciocínio: 4
Codificação: 1
Multimodal: 1
Contexto Longo: 1
Preço Combinado / 1M tokens: $0.000
Latência P95: 1000ms
Tokens por segundo: 125.696tokens/seg

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `LFM2 2.6B` vs `Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)`.

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 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) debate, LFM2 2.6B scores 10 against Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)'s 40. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) 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 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

LFM2 2.6B300ms

Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)300ms

Tokens per Second

LFM2 2.6B50

Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)125.696

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)

Power is only one part of the equation. This LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) 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 2.6B would cost $0.018, whereas Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) would cost $0.000. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) Battle for You?

Choose LFM2 2.6B if...

Cost is a secondary concern to power in your LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) decision.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) if...

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

Your budget is a primary consideration in the LFM2 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) 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 2.6B vs Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Fonte de dados: https://artificialanalysis.ai/