LFM2.5 24B A2B vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash

Overall
7
vs
Overall
45

MiMo-V2.6-Flash is clearly better. It wins 71 of the 74 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 2.2× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
71m 53s
9.2K, 93% thinking4.2K, 92% thinking
451m 21s
Agents
123m 49s
18.5K, 98% thinking2.2K, 86% thinking
381m 19s
Structured Extraction
1054.9s
4.4K, 94% thinking2.6K, 91% thinking
6238.0s
Coding
11m 15s
6.1K, 68% thinking9.9K, 97% thinking
242m 40s
Grounded Answers
557.8s
4.7K, 96% thinking2.6K, 89% thinking
6242.1s
Instruction Following
162m 44s
13.4K, 97% thinking4.8K, 90% thinking
641m 2s
Business Logic
51m 2s
5K, 83% thinking4.4K, 96% thinking
4356.4s
Security & permissions
101m 52s
9K, 97% thinking3.8K, 88% thinking
662m 6s
Diagnosis & investigation
04m 12s
19.9K, 98% thinking1.5K, 83% thinking
01m 33s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
82 tok/s
66 tok/s
Machine
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Hosted
Memory at 32K
25.0 GB
—
Context
128K
1.1M (better)
Cost per run
Not measured
$0.33
Cost per case
Not measured
$0.0021
Time per case
1m 53s
1m 21s (better)
Quantization
Q8_0
BF16
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 A2BMiMo-V2.6-Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run745

Every test case

153 test cases

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

3 won by LFM2.5 24B A2B71 won by MiMo-V2.6-Flash79 tied