Tarjeta de título que dice Moondream 3 vs LFM2.5-VL 3B: razonamiento fundamentado versus respuestas directas, con chips para 9B MoE con 2B activos y 3.1B denso, y un logotipo de OrcaRouter en la esquina.
Guides & Insights

Moondream 3 vs LFM2.5-VL 3B: Uno señala la respuesta, el otro simplemente responde

Autor

Elias Hawthorne

Fecha de publicación

Últimos modelos · 20Ver todos los modelos →
Benchmarks: Artificial Analysis · actualizado a diario
Volver a todas las publicaciones

The most useful difference between M​oondream 3 Preview and LFM2.5-VL-3B is not in their benchmark tables. It is that M​oondream 3 Preview reasons about an image by pointing into it — its reasoning traces are grounded, referencing specific regions — while LFM2.5-VL-3B is explicitly a non-reasoning model that answers directly, a choice Liquid AI made to keep latency low for on-device work. Same image in, two entirely different things come out, and which one you want depends on whether a downstream system has to trust the answer or merely consume it.

Everything else follows from that fork. M​oondream 3 Preview is a sparse mixture-of-experts model at 9B total parameters with 2B active, released on 18 September 2025 by M​oondream, which was acquired by Prime Intellect in October 2026. LFM2.5-VL-3B is a dense 3.1B model — a 2.6B language backbone with a 400M SigLIP2 NaFlex vision encoder — released by Liquid AI on 12 August 2026 as a direct successor to LFM2-VL-3B. One is a specialist that was built to detect and point and can also answer questions. The other is a generalist that was built to answer and recently learned to point.

La colisión de métricas que debes notar primero

Ponga los dos números de puesta a tierra uno al lado del otro y la comparación parece casi un empate. No lo es, porque no son la misma medición.

M​oondream's launch chart lists M​oondream 3 Preview at 91.1 on RefCOCO. Liquid AI reports LFM2.5-VL-3B at RefCOCO precision@1 of 87.9. RefCOCO accuracy and RefCOCO precision@1 are different statistics computed over the same dataset, and a 3.2-point gap between them tells you nothing about which model localises better. Anyone stacking those two figures in a bar chart is comparing a number to a differently-defined number.

• M​oondream 3 Preview grounding — RefCOCO 91.1, on a chart where frontier baselines (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5-Flash, C​laude 4 S​onnet) were queried through a template because they have no native grounding, and where some preview scores came from a 100-question sample rather than the full set. Vendor-reported and, as M​oondream says itself, not a fair fight.

• LFM2.5-VL-3B grounding — precisión@1 en RefCOCO de 87,9, frente a 57,1 del LFM2-VL-3B anterior, lo que Liquid atribuye al escalado de datos sintéticos de grounding. Reportado por el proveedor, comparación con el mismo arnés frente a su propio predecesor, que es el eje más significativo.

• Detection and pointing — M​oondream 3 Preview: native detect and point skills, structured coordinate output, part of the architecture. LFM2.5-VL-3B: grounding added by training, returned as coordinates the same way, with function calling also new to the VL line (ToolSandbox 26.4 to 59.5, BFCL v4 20.5 to 32.5).

The honest read: Liquid AI has a clean before-and-after on identical harnesses and M​oondream has a cross-model chart with template caveats. Neither gives you a head-to-head. If grounding accuracy is the deciding factor in your evaluation, your own labelled set is the only instrument that will settle it.

Lo que te cuesta el razonamiento fundamentado

M​oondream's query skill runs in reasoning mode by default. The model works through the question and its trace references the regions of the image it is using, which you can inspect in the playground by hovering over the text. For anything where a human has to audit the answer — a defect call on a production line, a security incident, a medical triage flag — that property is worth a lot. It is the difference between a model that says "no" and a model that says "no, here." p>The cost is tokens. Reasoning mode generates a trace before the answer, and M​oondream's own documentation offers the escape hatch: pass reasoning=False for simple questions, because the company knows the mode is not free. That is a real architectural admission — a well-designed model would not need a flag to switch the thought off.

LFM2.5-VL-3B no tiene equivalente. Fue diseñado como un modelo sin razonamiento, y Liquid AI es directa sobre el equilibrio: responder directamente mantiene baja la latencia para el uso en tiempo real y en el dispositivo. No hay traza que inspeccionar ni modo que desactivar. En una caja de supermercado leyendo códigos de barras, o en un teléfono traduciendo un menú, esa es la decisión de ingeniería correcta y la falta de traza no es un defecto.

So the question is not which is better. It is whether anything downstream of your model reads the reasoning. If a human does, M​oondream's grounded traces are the feature you are buying. If only a program does, you are paying for tokens nobody will read.

Donde 3.1B realmente gana

La afirmación sobre el tamaño de LFM2.5-VL-3B no es marketing. Se ejecuta con menos de 3,3 GB de memoria a 228 tokens por segundo en un Apple M5 Max, y a 116 tokens por segundo en un AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395, con exportaciones a GGUF, ONNX y MLX publicadas junto al checkpoint nativo. Es un modelo que puedes poner en un portátil, y Liquid AI también lo distribuye como un Space de Hugging Face con WebGPU que se ejecuta en una pestaña del navegador.

M​oondream 3 Preview has a smaller active parameter count — 2B against 3.1B — but the comparison is not symmetric, because a MoE checkpoint has to be fully resident even though only a fraction of it fires. The 9B of weights need somewhere to live. M​oondream's own answer to that is Photon, its local inference engine, which runs the model on N​VIDIA GPUs from Ampere onward and on Apple Silicon Macs. Different constraint: LFM2.5-VL-3B is small enough to fit anywhere, M​oondream 3 Preview is fast in the compute sense but large in the memory sense.

• Context — both 32K tokens. Genuine convergence, and worth noting given the two-year jump from the 2K windows of the previous M​oondream generation.

• Languages — LFM2.5-VL-3B lists sixteen: English, Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian, Hindi, Russian, Polish, and doubled its vocabulary to 128,000 to support non-Latin scripts. M​oondream 3 Preview's card leads on visual capability rather than a language list; treat multilingual VQA as something to test rather than something promised.

• Document reading — LFM2.5-VL-3B: DocVQA 91.1, ChartQA 81.3, OCRBench v1 84.2, OCRBench v2 English 47.5, MMMU 48.4. M​oondream 3 Preview: DocVQA 88.3, ChartQA 86.6, POPE 89.0. Different harnesses, vendor-reported on both sides.

• Lo que LFM2.5-VL-3B te dice que no hagas — la ficha de Liquid AI dice claramente que no se recomienda para tareas de contexto largo o de razonamiento intensivo, como el diseño web visual o las preguntas técnicas sobre planos. Esa frase es más útil que la mayoría de las tablas de benchmarks.

Despliegue, y dónde encaja un router

Neither of these models is served through OrcaRouter, and it is worth saying so directly rather than dancing around it: both are open-weight checkpoints you run yourself, and M​oondream 3 Preview's hosted endpoint — M​oondream Cloud — is being shut down on 13 November 2026 following the Prime Intellect acquisition, with unspent credits refunded.

Lo que eso cambia es la forma de la decisión. Un equipo que adopta como estándar un VLM autoalojado normalmente termina con un segundo modelo, alojado, para los casos que el local maneja mal, y en ese punto el trabajo de integración es el problema: dos SDK, dos esquemas de autenticación, dos políticas de reintento y una caída del proveedor que se convierte en tu caída.

This is the case OrcaRouter's routing DSL is built for. You compose several models into a single call — the 3.1B local model answers what it can, a hosted model takes the residue — behind one key for more than 200 models, with provider list price passed through at zero markup and automatic failover when an upstream degrades. Since neither M​oondream 3 Preview nor LFM2.5-VL-3B is in that catalogue, the routing layer sits above them rather than replacing them: it is how you keep the cheap local path cheap without making a vendor outage your outage.

La bifurcación de licencias, que es más pronunciada que los puntos de referencia.

Dos filosofías de licenciamiento distintas, y la diferencia importa más para una decisión de producto que una brecha de 3 puntos en la puntuación.

M​oondream 3 Preview ships under the Business Source License 1.1 with an Additional Use Grant (No Third-Party Service). Internal and production use, personal projects, research, benchmarks, fine-tunes, merges, quantisations, weight deltas, and use inside a product that does not substantially overlap M​oondream's paid offerings are all permitted. Selling a hosted API that exposes similar vision capabilities, managed "M​oondream-as-a-service", or embedding the weights in a paid SDK that delivers comparable capabilities requires a separate agreement. M​oondream 3.1 moved to the M​oondream Model License 1.0, which states the same rule more cleanly: component of your product is allowed, access to M​oondream itself as the product is not. Edge devices, customer-controlled VPCs, and running the model on leased cloud or neocloud GPUs are all explicitly on the allowed side.

LFM2.5-VL-3B is under Liquid AI's own LFM Open License v1.0. Read it before you ship, as you would any bespoke licence, but the families are different in kind: M​oondream's restriction targets one specific business — reselling the model — while Liquid's is a broad open licence with its own terms.

If you are a domain-specific builder, both are fine and the licence question is a formality. If your business is anywhere near "we host vision models for other people," M​oondream's licence is the constraint you read first and LFM's is the one you probably clear.

¿Cuál elegir?

A two-column comparison scoreboard titled Moondream 3 vs LFM2.5-VL 3B — the scoreboard, with matched rows for total parameters, active parameters, reasoning mode, context length, deployment footprint and licence, and a footer stating that both sets of figures are vendor-reported and that RefCOCO 91.1 and RefCOCO precision@1 87.9 are different statistics.

Choose M​oondream 3 Preview if the answer has to be inspectable. If a human reviews the output, if the trace needs to show which part of the image drove the decision, if detection and pointing are the primary product rather than a feature — that grounded reasoning is the whole reason to pay 9B of memory for a 2B-active model. Budget for Photon or a GPU, and plan around the hosted endpoint closing.

Elige LFM2.5-VL-3B si el modelo tiene que residir en el dispositivo. Si vas a desplegarlo en un teléfono, un portátil, un equipo de planta de fábrica o una pestaña del navegador, y la carga de trabajo es de un solo turno, de alto rendimiento y baja latencia —leer pantallas, transcribir documentos, detectar objetos en un flujo—, entonces un modelo denso de 3.1B que responde sin pensar es exactamente lo que quieres, y sus 228 tokens por segundo en un M5 Max es la cifra que lo decide.

Pick both if you have the budget for it, and route between them: LFM2.5-VL-3B on every frame because it is nearly free to run, M​oondream 3 Preview on the frames where a grounded answer is worth waiting for.

The Liquid AI release post for LFM2.5-VL-3B dated August 12 2026, showing the headline, the description of the model as a non-reasoning vision-language model that answers directly to keep latency low for real-time and on-device applications, and the start of the evaluations and what's-new sections.The OrcaRouter model catalogue showing the search and filter rail, the count of 210 models across 16 providers on one API key and one bill, the OpenAI-compatible endpoint instructions, and model cards with their providers and modalities.

Lo que los números no pueden decirte es si algo de esto ha salido mal sobre el terreno: los incidentes de IA documentados y los fallos de agentes en torno a los modelos de esta clase se recopilan en el Archivo de Incidentes de IA de OrcaRouter, donde cada entrada incluye sus propias fuentes, su gravedad, su grado de confianza y su indicador de disputa.

Comparados en este artículo1

Detectado en este artículo · Benchmarks: Artificial Analysis · actualizado a diario