Mercury 2.5 vs LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Mercury 2.5 costs 4.7x less per output token than LFM2.5-24B-A2B ($0.15 vs $0.70 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- 1.6
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.15
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.70
Mercury 2.5 or LFM2.5-24B-A2B: which to pick
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; LFM2.5-24B-A2B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
No benchmark has tested both yet. Mercury 2.5 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); LFM2.5-24B-A2B has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead.
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
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Mercury 2.5 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 12.3.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mercury 2.5
Mercury 2.5 $0.0001, LFM2.5-24B-A2B $0.0004 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Mercury 2.5 1.6 from 2 benchmarks, LFM2.5-24B-A2B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- Mercury 2.5 $0.15 against LFM2.5-24B-A2B $0.70 per million output tokens, 4.7x apart.
- Context window
- Mercury 2.5 takes 260K tokens, LFM2.5-24B-A2B 128K.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards measured
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 3.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 4.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | 2.4% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 34.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 18.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | 45.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| SciCode | 38.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| ALE-Bench | 301.6 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 12.3 | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 18.9% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | 2.5% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 4.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 8.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 11.8% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 3.0% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 83.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 31.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Mercury 2.5 | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 45.3% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 55.1% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 71.7% | Not measured | Only Mercury 2.5 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 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
Mercury 2.5 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mercury 2.5 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Mercury 2.5 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 | Inception Mercury 2.5 | LiquidAI LFM2.5-24B-A2B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Inception | Liquid |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | September 8, 2026 | October 13, 2026 |
| Context window | 260K | 128K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.04 | $0.05 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.15 | $0.70 |
| Coding index | 1.6 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Mercury 2.5 better than LFM2.5-24B-A2B for coding?
Only Mercury 2.5 has a coding score, 1.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; LFM2.5-24B-A2B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Mercury 2.5 or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
Mercury 2.5 costs $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 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, Mercury 2.5 or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
Mercury 2.5, with 260K tokens against 128K.
Has any benchmark tested both Mercury 2.5 and LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Mercury 2.5 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); LFM2.5-24B-A2B has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.