Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs LFM2.5 24B A2B

Overall
57
vs
Overall
7

Beam 1.0 501B A23B is clearly better. It wins 90 of the 91 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 2.4× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
5717.2s
4K, 87% thinking9.2K, 93% thinking
71m 53s
Agents
5521.8s
4.8K, 90% thinking18.5K, 98% thinking
123m 49s
Structured Extraction
819.98s
3.4K, 91% thinking4.4K, 94% thinking
1054.9s
Coding
4819.9s
4.5K, 70% thinking6.1K, 68% thinking
11m 15s
Grounded Answers
6911.6s
2.7K, 88% thinking4.7K, 96% thinking
557.8s
Instruction Following
7820.9s
5.6K, 90% thinking13.4K, 97% thinking
162m 44s
Business Logic
5714.0s
4.2K, 95% thinking5K, 83% thinking
51m 2s
Security & permissions
5120.6s
3.2K, 88% thinking9K, 97% thinking
101m 52s
Diagnosis & investigation
1724.3s
3.1K, 90% 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
274 tok/s
82 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Memory at 32K
—
25.0 GB
Context
1M (better)
128K
Cost per run
$0.83
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.0054
Not measured
Time per case
17.2s (better)
1m 53s
Quantization
FP8
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.

Beam 1.0 501B A23BLFM2.5 24B A2B
025507510050100150Perfect run577

Every test case

153 test cases

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

90 won by Beam 1.0 501B A23B1 won by LFM2.5 24B A2B62 tied