Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) vs LFM2.5 24B A2B

Overall
25
vs
Overall
7

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) is clearly better. It wins 37 of the 41 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. LFM2.5 24B A2B spends 1.4× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
2535.1s
8.5K, 75% thinking9.2K, 93% thinking
71m 53s
Agents
2639.4s
6.2K, 69% thinking18.5K, 98% thinking
123m 49s
Structured Extraction
5227.2s
7.7K, 68% thinking4.4K, 94% thinking
1054.9s
Coding
446.5s
12.1K, 94% thinking6.1K, 68% thinking
11m 15s
Grounded Answers
2926.0s
6.9K, 70% thinking4.7K, 96% thinking
557.8s
Instruction Following
3644.5s
11.4K, 79% thinking13.4K, 97% thinking
162m 44s
Business Logic
1435.4s
10K, 56% thinking5K, 83% thinking
51m 2s
Security & permissions
4027.3s
5.8K, 76% thinking9K, 97% thinking
101m 52s
Diagnosis & investigation
034.6s
5.1K, 84% thinking19.9K, 98% thinking
04m 12s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
278 tok/s
82 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Memory at 32K
—
25.0 GB
Context
256K (better)
128K
Cost per run
Not measured
Not measured
Cost per case
Not measured
Not measured
Time per case
35.1s (better)
1m 53s
Quantization
BF16
Q8_0
Harness
openrouter
llama.cpp

The race

No lead changes

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)LFM2.5 24B A2B
025507510050100150Perfect run257

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

37 won by Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)4 won by LFM2.5 24B A2B112 tied