LFM2.5 24B A2B vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Overall
7
vs
Overall
45

Ling 3.1 Flash is clearly better. It wins 69 of the 71 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 1.5× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
71m 53s
9.2K, 93% thinking7.9K, 73% thinking
451m 16s
Agents
123m 49s
18.5K, 98% thinking4.5K, 66% thinking
4155.9s
Structured Extraction
1054.9s
4.4K, 94% thinking8.1K, 69% thinking
711m 11s
Coding
11m 15s
6.1K, 68% thinking11.3K, 89% thinking
241m 42s
Grounded Answers
557.8s
4.7K, 96% thinking6.7K, 74% thinking
5258.9s
Instruction Following
162m 44s
13.4K, 97% thinking11.4K, 77% thinking
761m 55s
Business Logic
51m 2s
5K, 83% thinking9.7K, 56% thinking
381m 22s
Security & permissions
101m 52s
9K, 97% thinking5.2K, 74% thinking
5456.1s
Diagnosis & investigation
04m 12s
19.9K, 98% thinking3.2K, 72% thinking
042.1s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
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

No lead changes

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

LFM2.5 24B A2BLing 3.1 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run745

Every test case

153 test cases

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

2 won by LFM2.5 24B A2B69 won by Ling 3.1 Flash82 tied