// head_to_head
LFM2.5-24B-A2B vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
LFM2.5-24B-A2B and Qwen3.8 Flash are priced within ~10% of each other.
LFM2.5-24B-A2B does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
liquid
LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- Blended / 1M
- $0.212
- Context
- 128K
- Released
- Oct 13, 2026
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
qwen
Qwen3.8 Flash
- Blended / 1M
- $0.230
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Aug 26, 2026
- Overall score
- 47.0
Specs and pricing
| Metric | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | — | 47.0 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | — | $0.2009 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.212 | $0.230 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.050win | $0.150 |
| Output price / 1M | $0.700 | $0.470win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.025 | $0.016win |
| Context window | 128K | 1Mwin |
| Max output tokens | 8K | 131Kwin |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — LFM2.5-24B-A2B on top, Qwen3.8 Flash below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $66.20/mo | $63.95/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $72.00/mo | $94.60/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $82.00/mo | $82.56/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $101.25/mo | $178.55/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $182.50/mo | $355.00/mo |
Which should you pick?
You need to fit large documents in one call
Qwen3.8 Flash
Wider context window — 1M against 128K.
LFM2.5-24B-A2B vs Qwen3.8 Flash FAQ
Which is better, LFM2.5-24B-A2B or Qwen3.8 Flash?
LFM2.5-24B-A2B and Qwen3.8 Flash are priced within ~10% of each other. LFM2.5-24B-A2B does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is LFM2.5-24B-A2B cheaper than Qwen3.8 Flash?
They cost about the same. Both land near $0.212 per million tokens on a 3:1 input:output blend, so price is unlikely to be the deciding factor between them.
Does LFM2.5-24B-A2B or Qwen3.8 Flash have a bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 Flash has the larger context window: 128K for LFM2.5-24B-A2B against 1M for Qwen3.8 Flash. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do LFM2.5-24B-A2B and Qwen3.8 Flash support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.025 per million for LFM2.5-24B-A2B and $0.016 for Qwen3.8 Flash, against full input rates of $0.050 and $0.150. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-09-02, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.