Ling 3.1 Flash vs LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Ling 3.1 Flash costs 3.1x less per output token than LFM2.5-24B-A2B ($0.225 vs $0.70 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.225
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.70
Ling 3.1 Flash or LFM2.5-24B-A2B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for output tokens 3.1x cheaper ($0.225 vs $0.70 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 128K tokens).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Ling 3.1 Flash has results on SciCode, AA Intelligence Index and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run); 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
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Ling 3.1 Flash has a AA Intelligence Index result, 41.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, LFM2.5-24B-A2B $0.0004 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, 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
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against LFM2.5-24B-A2B $0.70 per million output tokens, 3.1x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K 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 Index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 54.1% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 47 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
Ling 3.1 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash 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 | inclusionAI Ling 3.1 Flash | LiquidAI LFM2.5-24B-A2B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Liquid |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | October 13, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 128K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $0.05 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $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 Ling 3.1 Flash better than LFM2.5-24B-A2B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for output tokens 3.1x cheaper ($0.225 vs $0.70 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 128K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 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, Ling 3.1 Flash or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
Ling 3.1 Flash, with 262K tokens against 128K.
Has any benchmark tested both Ling 3.1 Flash and LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Ling 3.1 Flash has results on SciCode, AA Intelligence Index and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run); LFM2.5-24B-A2B has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.