LFM2.5 24B A2B vs Claude Haiku 5.5

Overall
7
vs
Overall
70

Claude Haiku 5.5 is clearly better. It wins 109 of the 111 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 2.8× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
71m 53s
9.2K, 93% thinking3.9K, 78% thinking
7025.5s
Agents
123m 49s
18.5K, 98% thinking3.7K, 61% thinking
6139.5s
Structured Extraction
1054.9s
4.4K, 94% thinking2.6K, 83% thinking
9013.5s
Coding
11m 15s
6.1K, 68% thinking6.8K, 76% thinking
8630.6s
Grounded Answers
557.8s
4.7K, 96% thinking2.2K, 78% thinking
7613.9s
Instruction Following
162m 44s
13.4K, 97% thinking4.3K, 82% thinking
9431.5s
Business Logic
51m 2s
5K, 83% thinking5.5K, 95% thinking
6726.0s
Security & permissions
101m 52s
9K, 97% thinking2.7K, 70% thinking
6723.4s
Diagnosis & investigation
04m 12s
19.9K, 98% thinking2.3K, 50% thinking
1725.5s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
82 tok/s
225 tok/s
Machine
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Hosted
Memory at 32K
25.0 GB
—
Context
128K
1M (better)
Cost per run
Not measured
$0.42
Cost per case
Not measured
$0.0028
Time per case
1m 53s
25.5s (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 A2BClaude Haiku 5.5
025507510050100150Perfect run770

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 A2B109 won by Claude Haiku 5.542 tied