Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
LFM2.5-24B-A2B
LFM2.5-24B-A2B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Celeris-1 vs LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Updated October 13, 2026. Rank says LFM2.5-24B-A2B is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
LFM2.5-24B-A2B has the higher public point estimate, 37.8 versus 28.3. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- Celeris-1 only
- 3
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Celeris-1 and LFM2.5-24B-A2B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Celeris-1 and LFM2.5-24B-A2B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Celeris-1 and LFM2.5-24B-A2B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-24B-A2B does not fit this workload in one request. Celeris-1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
11.0Celeris-128.5LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8
LFM2.5-24B-A2B has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 Celeris-1 only
1 Shared
12 LFM2.5-24B-A2B only
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Celeris-1
- 7.1
- Estimated · #120/124
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- 30.2
- Estimated · #88/124
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Celeris-1
- 11.0
- Estimated · #141/149
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- 28.5
- Estimated · #98/149
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Celeris-1
- 28.5
- Supported · #157/181
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- 40.8
- Estimated · #112/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- 52.0
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- 75.6
- #61/128
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Celeris-1 | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 7.1Estimated · #120/124 | 30.2Estimated · #88/124 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 5 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 11.0Estimated · #141/149 | 28.5Estimated · #98/149 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 28.5Supported · #157/181 | 40.8Estimated · #112/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 52.0Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 75.6#61/128 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Celeris-1
- $0.00055
- Does not fit in one request
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- $0.0006
- Fits in one request
Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Celeris-1
- $0.0121
- Does not fit in one request
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- $0.008
- Fits in one request
Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Celeris-1
- $0.051
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B
- $0.022
- Does not fit in one request
Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-24B-A2B does not fit this workload in one request. Celeris-1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationCeleris-1LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Celeris-1
131,072 tokens
Celeris-1 model guideLFM2.5-24B-A2B
API model ID
Celeris-1
celeris-1
Celeris-1 model guideLFM2.5-24B-A2B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Celeris-1
Not published
Celeris API pricingLFM2.5-24B-A2B
$0.05 per 1M cached input tokens
Liquid AI launch postDocumented inputs
Celeris-1
text, image
Celeris-1 model guideLFM2.5-24B-A2B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Celeris-1
LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Celeris-1
Generally Available · Celeris OpenAI-compatible API (United States)
Celeris availabilityLFM2.5-24B-A2B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Celeris-1
Non-Reasoning
LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Reasoning
Weight access
Celeris-1
Proprietary
LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Open Weight
License
Celeris-1
Proprietary
LFM2.5-24B-A2B
Open Weight
Release date
Celeris-1
2026-07-22
LFM2.5-24B-A2B
2026-10-13
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B has the higher public point estimate, 37.8 versus 28.3. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0121 vs $0.008. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.051 vs $0.022.
- Context tradeoff
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B has the larger documented window (131K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Celeris-1 or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
LFM2.5-24B-A2B has the higher public point estimate, 37.8 versus 28.3. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Celeris-1 or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
LFM2.5-24B-A2B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 28.5 to 11. Celeris-1 and LFM2.5-24B-A2B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Celeris-1 or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
LFM2.5-24B-A2B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 30.2 to 7.1. Celeris-1 and LFM2.5-24B-A2B are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Celeris-1 or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00055 on Celeris-1 and $0.0006 on LFM2.5-24B-A2B; repository review costs $0.0121 and $0.008; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.051 and $0.022. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. LFM2.5-24B-A2B does not fit this workload in one request. Celeris-1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Celeris-1 or LFM2.5-24B-A2B?
LFM2.5-24B-A2B has the larger documented context window: 131K, compared with 131,072 tokens.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence16 rows
Agentic
AutomationBench
Celeris-1—LFM2.5-24B-A2B27.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Celeris-1—LFM2.5-24B-A2B65.0%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Celeris-1—LFM2.5-24B-A2B8.0%SourceNot directly comparable
PinchBench
Celeris-1—LFM2.5-24B-A2B83.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Celeris-1—LFM2.5-24B-A2B26.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Reasoning
DROP
Celeris-181.4%SourceLFM2.5-24B-A2B—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Instruction following
Math
16 public results · 1 shared
Watch Celeris-1 vs LFM2.5-24B-A2B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 13, 2026