LFM2 24B A2B vs Hy-MT2-1.8B
LFM2 24B A2B comes out ahead, 58 to 49 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Liquid AILFM2 24B A2B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.03 / $0.12
- Context33K
TencentHy-MT2-1.8B
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.044 / $0.177
- Context8K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
LFM2 24B A2B is our pick
LFM2 24B A2B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Hy-MT2-1.8B (49). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceLFM2 24B A2BLFM2 24B A2B $0.052 · Hy-MT2-1.8B $0.077 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLFM2 24B A2BLFM2 24B A2B 32,768 · Hy-MT2-1.8B 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLFM2 24B A2B: Text · Hy-MT2-1.8B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | LFM2 24B A2B | Hy-MT2-1.8B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 98 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 58/100 | 49/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | LFM2 24B A2BLiquid AI | Hy-MT2-1.8BTencent |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.03 (best) | $0.044 |
| Output | $0.12 (best) | $0.177 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.052 (best) | $0.077 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 32,768 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenLFM Open License v1.0 | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Feb 24, 2026 | May 21, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- LFM2 24B A2B$0.54
- Hy-MT2-1.8B$0.794
Which should you choose?
Which is better: LFM2 24B A2B or Hy-MT2-1.8B?
LFM2 24B A2B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Hy-MT2-1.8B (49). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, LFM2 24B A2B or Hy-MT2-1.8B?
LFM2 24B A2B is cheaper at $0.03 input / $0.12 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Hy-MT2-1.8B costs $0.044 input / $0.177 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.052 per million tokens for LFM2 24B A2B versus $0.077 for Hy-MT2-1.8B (1.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. LFM2 24B A2B has not been scored yet and Hy-MT2-1.8B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for LFM2 24B A2B and Hy-MT2-1.8B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Hy-MT2-1.8B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
LFM2 24B A2B has the largest context window at 32,768 tokens, against 8,192 for Hy-MT2-1.8B. Maximum output per response: LFM2 24B A2B up to 32,768, Hy-MT2-1.8B up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
LFM2 24B A2B accepts text; Hy-MT2-1.8B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (LFM Open License v1.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Hy-MT2-1.8B is the newest, released May 21, 2026. LFM2 24B A2B came out Feb 24, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3.5 4BThree-way comparison
- LFM2 24B A2B vs Qwen3.5 4BAlibaba (Qwen)
- LFM2 24B A2B vs Gemma 4 E2B ITGoogle
- LFM2 24B A2B vs Schematron V2 TurboInference.net
- LFM2 24B A2B vs AutoGLM Phone 9B MultilingualZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Hy-MT2-1.8B vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B ITGoogle
- Hy-MT2-1.8B vs Schematron V2 SmallInference.net
