LFM2.5 24B A2B vs Ling 3.1 Flash
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 1.5× as many thinking tokens per test case.
TaskALFM2.5 24B A2BBLing 3.1 Flash
Overall
71m 53s
451m 16s
Agents
123m 49s
4155.9s
Structured Extraction
1054.9s
711m 11s
Coding
11m 15s
241m 42s
Grounded Answers
557.8s
5258.9s
Instruction Following
162m 44s
761m 55s
Business Logic
51m 2s
381m 22s
Security & permissions
101m 52s
5456.1s
Diagnosis & investigation
04m 12s
042.1s
What you'd run
The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.
SpecALFM2.5 24B A2BBLing 3.1 Flash
Speed
82 tok/s
112 tok/s
Machine
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Hosted
Memory at 32K
25.0 GB
—
Context
128K
256K (better)
Cost per run
Not measured
Not measured
Cost per case
Not measured
Not measured
Time per case
1m 53s
1m 16s (better)
Quantization
Q8_0
—
Harness
llama.cpp
openrouter
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