LFM2.5-24B-A2B vs Muse Glimmer 30B
LFM2.5-24B-A2B costs 1.9x less per output token than Muse Glimmer 30B ($0.70 vs $1.35 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.70
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $1.35
LFM2.5-24B-A2B or Muse Glimmer 30B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick LFM2.5-24B-A2B for output tokens 1.9x cheaper ($0.70 vs $1.35 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. LFM2.5-24B-A2B has none yet; Muse Glimmer 30B on AA Coding Index, ALE-Bench and AA Intelligence Index. 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 Muse Glimmer 30B has a AA Intelligence Index result, 17.5.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Muse Glimmer 30B has a AA Agentic Index result, 8.5.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Muse Glimmer 30B
Muse Glimmer 30B takes 131K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
LFM2.5-24B-A2B
LFM2.5-24B-A2B $0.0004, Muse Glimmer 30B $0.0010 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B not benchmarked, Muse Glimmer 30B 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
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B $0.70 against Muse Glimmer 30B $1.35 per million output tokens, 1.9x apart.
- Context window
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B takes 128K tokens, Muse Glimmer 30B 131K.
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 Index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 49.0 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 962.5 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 17.5 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 8.5 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Muse Glimmer 30B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1132 | Only Muse Glimmer 30B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 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 | LiquidAI LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Meta Muse Glimmer 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Liquid | Meta |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | October 13, 2026 | August 9, 2026 |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.05 | $0.325 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.70 | $1.35 |
| 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 LFM2.5-24B-A2B better than Muse Glimmer 30B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick LFM2.5-24B-A2B for output tokens 1.9x cheaper ($0.70 vs $1.35 per million).
Which is cheaper, LFM2.5-24B-A2B or Muse Glimmer 30B?
LFM2.5-24B-A2B costs $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Muse Glimmer 30B costs $0.325 and $1.35. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, LFM2.5-24B-A2B or Muse Glimmer 30B?
Muse Glimmer 30B, with 131K tokens against 128K.
Has any benchmark tested both LFM2.5-24B-A2B and Muse Glimmer 30B?
No benchmark has tested both yet. LFM2.5-24B-A2B has none yet; Muse Glimmer 30B on AA Coding Index, ALE-Bench and AA Intelligence Index. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.