LFM2.5 24B A2B vs MiniMax M3.1 Flash

Overall
7
vs
Overall
35

MiniMax M3.1 Flash is clearly better. It wins 58 of the 60 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 5.0× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
71m 53s
9.2K, 93% thinking2.3K, 73% thinking
3521.3s
Agents
123m 49s
18.5K, 98% thinking3.1K, 71% thinking
3637.0s
Structured Extraction
1054.9s
4.4K, 94% thinking1.1K, 74% thinking
487.96s
Coding
11m 15s
6.1K, 68% thinking4.6K, 66% thinking
5840.6s
Grounded Answers
557.8s
4.7K, 96% thinking1.2K, 71% thinking
339.75s
Instruction Following
162m 44s
13.4K, 97% thinking1.7K, 70% thinking
5314.7s
Business Logic
51m 2s
5K, 83% thinking3.5K, 94% thinking
2425.9s
Security & permissions
101m 52s
9K, 97% thinking1.3K, 60% thinking
3012.7s
Diagnosis & investigation
04m 12s
19.9K, 98% thinking2.1K, 51% thinking
022.8s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
82 tok/s
135 tok/s
Machine
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Hosted
Memory at 32K
25.0 GB
—
Context
128K
1M (better)
Cost per run
Not measured
Not measured
Cost per case
Not measured
Not measured
Time per case
1m 53s
21.3s (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 A2BMiniMax M3.1 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run735

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 A2B58 won by MiniMax M3.1 Flash93 tied