$ diff lfm2-5-24b-a2b mimo-v2-6-pro
LFM2.5-24B-A2B vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
Values come from LFM2.5-24B-A2B and MiMo-V2.6-Pro, where each is cited to its source. This page states no benchmark result and ranks neither model — it puts two published specifications next to each other. Where a lab has not published a figure, the row says so rather than guessing.
Liquid AILFM2.5-24B-A2B
- context
- 131K
- weights
- —
- $/M in
- $0.1
- $/M out
- $1
- context
- 1M
- weights
- open
- $/M in
- $0.435
- $/M out
- $0.87
What actually differs
- Context window
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro takes 1M against 131K — 7.6× more room in a single request.
- Input price
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B at $0.1/M against $0.435/M — 4.3× cheaper to feed. Standard rates: one of these labs also quotes a lower cached-input tier, which applies only when a prefix is reused — see the full spec below.
- Output price
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro at $0.87/M against $1/M — 1.1× cheaper to generate. Output dominates the bill on most agentic workloads, where the model writes far more than it reads.
- Recency
- LFM2.5-24B-A2B shipped 21 days after MiMo-V2.6-Pro (2026-10-13 vs 2026-09-22).
Full spec
| Attribute | LFM2.5-24B-A2B | MiMo-V2.6-Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Liquid AI | Xiaomi |
| Released | 2026-10-13 | 2026-09-22 |
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1M tokens |
| Pricing | $0.10/M input · $0.05/M cached input · $1.00/M output | no vendor list price — weights are MIT and self-hostable; routed providers reported at $0.435/M input · $0.87/M output |
| License | not recorded | MIT (open weights) |
| Availability | Downloadable base and post-trained weights; Liquid Playground and API | Hugging Face as `XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-V2.6-Pro-RL`; hosted via third-party routers |