LFM2.5 24B A2B vs Underdog Saluki 27B

Overall
7
vs
Overall
33

Underdog Saluki 27B is clearly better. It wins 54 of the 56 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% thinking6.9K, 84% thinking
335m 15s
Agents
123m 49s
18.5K, 98% thinking11.8K, 97% thinking
409m 2s
Structured Extraction
1054.9s
4.4K, 94% thinking4.4K, 92% thinking
433m 17s
Coding
11m 15s
6.1K, 68% thinking9.2K, 49% thinking
166m 54s
Grounded Answers
557.8s
4.7K, 96% thinking4.5K, 92% thinking
433m 22s
Instruction Following
162m 44s
13.4K, 97% thinking8K, 94% thinking
466m 5s
Business Logic
51m 2s
5K, 83% thinking5.2K, 81% thinking
333m 55s
Security & permissions
101m 52s
9K, 97% thinking4.9K, 91% thinking
433m 47s
Diagnosis & investigation
04m 12s
19.9K, 98% thinking8.7K, 94% thinking
06m 39s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
82 tok/s (better)
23 tok/s
Machine
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Memory at 32K
25.0 GB
10.2 GB (better)
Context
128K
256K (better)
Cost per run
Not measured
Not measured
Cost per case
Not measured
Not measured
Time per case
1m 53s (better)
5m 15s
Quantization
Q8_0
IQ2_XS
Harness
llama.cpp
llama.cpp

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 A2BUnderdog Saluki 27B
025507510050100150Perfect run733

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 A2B54 won by Underdog Saluki 27B97 tied