Command A+ vs LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $1.50
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.70
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Command A+ has the edge where the context window is larger, 192K against 128K tokens.
- Shared results
- 0
- Command A+ only
- 0
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Command A+
Command A+ takes 192K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Command A+ $0.0010, LFM2.5-24B-A2B $0.0004 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Command A+ not benchmarked, LFM2.5-24B-A2B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- No category has a result for both models.
- Widest single gap
- No benchmark has a result for both models.
- Output price
- Command A+ $1.50 against LFM2.5-24B-A2B $0.70 per million output tokens, 2.1x apart.
- Context window
- Command A+ takes 192K tokens, LFM2.5-24B-A2B 128K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
CodingNot comparableSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A+ | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 38 boards here | |||
IntelligenceNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A+ | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 2 boards here | |||
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A+ | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A+ | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 21 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A+ | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A+ | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 17 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A+ | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A+ | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 46 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A+ | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
LFM2.5-24B-A2B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
LFM2.5-24B-A2B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
LFM2.5-24B-A2B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Cohere Command A+ | LiquidAI LFM2.5-24B-A2B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Cohere | Liquid |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | September 22, 2026 | October 13, 2026 |
| Context window | 192K | 128K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.30 | $0.05 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.50 | $0.70 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Command A+ better than LFM2.5-24B-A2B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Command A+ has the edge where the context window is larger, 192K against 128K tokens.
Which is cheaper, Command A+ or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
Command A+ costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; LFM2.5-24B-A2B costs $0.05 and $0.70. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Command A+ or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
Command A+, with 192K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the Command A+ vs LFM2.5-24B-A2B comparison based on?
0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command A+'s coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and LFM2.5-24B-A2B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.