DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs LFM2.5 24B A2B
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 1.8× as many thinking tokens per test case.
TaskADeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017BLFM2.5 24B A2B
Overall
5626.0s
71m 53s
Agents
5826.7s
123m 49s
Structured Extraction
8117.2s
1054.9s
Coding
4840.8s
11m 15s
Grounded Answers
7119.8s
557.8s
Instruction Following
7625.6s
162m 44s
Business Logic
6726.6s
51m 2s
Security & permissions
4826.6s
101m 52s
Diagnosis & investigation
020.2s
04m 12s
What you'd run
The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.
SpecADeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017BLFM2.5 24B A2B
Speed
243 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
$0.75
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.0049
Not measured
Time per case
26.0s (better)
1m 53s
Quantization
—
Q8_0
Harness
openrouter
llama.cpp
The race
Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.
Every test case
Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.
Agents
Structured Extraction
Coding
Grounded Answers
Instruction Following
Business Logic
Security & permissions
Diagnosis & investigation